Recomendaciones para el uso racional de la prueba 25-hidroxi vitamina D Policy Brief

El incremento exponencial en la solicitud de pruebas de laboratorio de 25-Hidroxivitamina D o [25(OH)D ha encendido las alarmas y generado un fuerte llamado de atención, dado que puede reflejar falencias en la estandarización de la práctica clínica y en el uso no sistemático de la evidencia científica para la toma de decisiones en la vida real, que permitan analizar las indicaciones de la prueba, su frecuencia, interpretación e incluso para valorar el impacto para los sistemas de salud, especialmente cuando se contrasta con los mínimos o casi nulos efectos de la estrategia de tamizar o suplir indiscriminadamente a la población general, sin considerar una evaluación clínica integral de riesgos y necesidades de las personas. Desde un punto de vista meramente de impacto en salud pública, la consecuencia de solicitudes masivas y no indicadas, están afectando a la mayoría de los sistemas e instituciones de salud a nivel global. Los estudios primarios que determinaban valores de ingesta promedio poblacional, han sido ampliamente utilizados en la formulación de recomendaciones en Guías de Práctica Clínica (GPC), pero lastimosamente interpretados de forma errónea como puntos de corte para diagnosticar enfermedad y permitir la exagerada prescripción de esquemas de suplencia. El coeficiente de variación en los ensayos de rutina para medir niveles sanguíneos de 25(OH)D3 es alto (28%), disminuyendo la precisión global de la prueba y de forma simultánea, incrementando tanto los valores falsamente altos como falsamente bajos. La evidencia científica más reciente, analiza y cuestiona seriamente, la utilidad y el efecto real de la práctica masiva e indiscriminada de prescribir vitamina D sin un análisis exhaustivo de riesgo. La evidencia disponible es insuficiente para recomendar de forma general la suplencia de vitamina D para prevenir fracturas, caídas, cambios en la densidad mineral ósea, incidencia de enfermedades cardiovasculares, enfermedad cerebrovascular, neoplasias y tampoco en modificar la curva de crecimiento de hijos de madres que recibieron vitamina D como suplencia durante la gestación. Las recomendaciones presentadas en el documento se sustentan en el análisis crítico de la evidencia actual y en los principios de buenas prácticas clínicas e invitan a considerar un uso racional de las pruebas de 25(OH)D en el contexto de una práctica clínica centrada en las personas y una evaluación integral de necesidades y riesgos. Los principios de buena práctica sugieren que los clínicos puedan ser capaces de justificar que los resultados de la prueba de 25(OH)D influyen de manera contundente y definida la práctica clínica y modifican los desenlaces que interesan a las personas e impactan en su salud y bienestar. En la actualidad no hay claridad de cómo interpretar los resultados, y la relación entre los síntomas y los niveles de 25(OH)D, la cual, podría no ser consistente con la alta prevalencia de deficiencia de vitamina D reportada. Por tal razón, se sugiere revisar la racionalidad de la solicitud de pruebas para monitoreo sistemático de niveles de 25(OH)D o en todos los casos donde se realiza suplencia. Considerar el uso de las pruebas de 25(OH)D dentro de la evaluación integral de personas con sospecha o confirmación de las siguientes condiciones: raquitismo, osteomalacia, osteoporosis, híper o hipo paratiroidismo, síndromes de mala absorción, sarcopenia, enfermedad ósea metabólica

Efficacy and safety of the CVnCoV SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine candidate in ten countries in Europe and Latin America (HERALD): a randomised, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 trial

Background: Additional safe and efficacious vaccines are needed to control the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to analyse the efficacy and safety of the CVnCoV SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine candidate. Methods: HERALD is a randomised, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 clinical trial conducted in 47 centres in ten countries in Europe and Latin America. By use of an interactive web response system and stratification by country and age group (18–60 years and ≥61 years), adults with no history of virologically confirmed COVID-19 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intramuscularly either two 0·6 mL doses of CVnCoV containing 12 μg of mRNA or two 0·6 mL doses of 0·9% NaCl (placebo) on days 1 and 29. The primary efficacy endpoint was the occurrence of a first episode of virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 of any severity and caused by any strain from 15 days after the second dose. For the primary endpoint, the trial was considered successful if the lower limit of the CI was greater than 30%. Key secondary endpoints were the occurrence of a first episode of virologically confirmed moderate-to-severe COVID-19, severe COVID-19, and COVID-19 of any severity by age group. Primary safety outcomes were solicited local and systemic adverse events within 7 days after each dose and unsolicited adverse events within 28 days after each dose in phase 2b participants, and serious adverse events and adverse events of special interest up to 1 year after the second dose in phase 2b and phase 3 participants. Here, we report data up to June 18, 2021. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04652102, and EudraCT, 2020–003998–22, and is ongoing. Findings: Between Dec 11, 2020, and April 12, 2021, 39 680 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either CVnCoV (n=19 846) or placebo (n=19 834), of whom 19 783 received at least one dose of CVnCoV and 19 746 received at least one dose of placebo. After a mean observation period of 48·2 days (SE 0·2), 83 cases of COVID-19 occurred in the CVnCoV group (n=12 851) in 1735·29 person-years and 145 cases occurred in the placebo group (n=12 211) in 1569·87 person-years, resulting in an overall vaccine efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 of 48·2% (95·826% CI 31·0–61·4; p=0·016). Vaccine efficacy against moderate-to-severe COVID-19 was 70·7% (95% CI 42·5–86·1; CVnCoV 12 cases in 1735·29 person-years, placebo 37 cases in 1569·87 person-years). In participants aged 18–60 years, vaccine efficacy against symptomatic disease was 52·5% (95% CI 36·2–64·8; CVnCoV 71 cases in 1591·47 person-years, placebo, 136 cases in 1449·23 person-years). Too few cases occurred in participants aged 61 years or older (CVnCoV 12, placebo nine) to allow meaningful assessment of vaccine efficacy. Solicited adverse events, which were mostly systemic, were more common in CVnCoV recipients (1933 [96·5%] of 2003) than in placebo recipients (1344 [67·9%] of 1978), with 542 (27·1%) CVnCoV recipients and 61 (3·1%) placebo recipients reporting grade 3 solicited adverse events. The most frequently reported local reaction after any dose in the CVnCoV group was injection-site pain (1678 [83·6%] of 2007), with 22 grade 3 reactions, and the most frequently reported systematic reactions were fatigue (1603 [80·0%] of 2003) and headache (1541 [76·9%] of 2003). 82 (0·4%) of 19 783 CVnCoV recipients reported 100 serious adverse events and 66 (0·3%) of 19 746 placebo recipients reported 76 serious adverse events. Eight serious adverse events in five CVnCoV recipients and two serious adverse events in two placebo recipients were considered vaccination-related. None of the fatal serious adverse events reported (eight in the CVnCoV group and six in the placebo group) were considered to be related to study vaccination. Adverse events of special interest were reported for 38 (0·2%) participants in the CVnCoV group and 31 (0·2%) participants in the placebo group. These events were considered to be related to the trial vaccine for 14 (<0·1%) participants in the CVnCoV group and for five (<0·1%) participants in the placebo group. Interpretation: CVnCoV was efficacious in the prevention of COVID-19 of any severity and had an acceptable safety profile. Taking into account the changing environment, including the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants, and timelines for further development, the decision has been made to cease activities on the CVnCoV candidate and to focus efforts on the development of next-generation vaccine candidates. Funding: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and CureVac

An international observational study to assess the impact of the Omicron variant emergence on the clinical epidemiology of COVID-19 in hospitalised patients

Background: Whilst timely clinical characterisation of infections caused by novel SARS-CoV-2 variants is necessary for evidence-based policy response, individual-level data on infecting variants are typically only available for a minority of patients and settings. Methods: Here, we propose an innovative approach to study changes in COVID-19 hospital presentation and outcomes after the Omicron variant emergence using publicly available population-level data on variant relative frequency to infer SARS-CoV-2 variants likely responsible for clinical cases. We apply this method to data collected by a large international clinical consortium before and after the emergence of the Omicron variant in different countries. Results: Our analysis, that includes more than 100,000 patients from 28 countries, suggests that in many settings patients hospitalised with Omicron variant infection less often presented with commonly reported symptoms compared to patients infected with pre-Omicron variants. Patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital after Omicron variant emergence had lower mortality compared to patients admitted during the period when Omicron variant was responsible for only a minority of infections (odds ratio in a mixed-effects logistic regression adjusted for likely confounders, 0.67 [95% confidence interval 0.61-0.75]). Qualitatively similar findings were observed in sensitivity analyses with different assumptions on population-level Omicron variant relative frequencies, and in analyses using available individual-level data on infecting variant for a subset of the study population. Conclusions: Although clinical studies with matching viral genomic information should remain a priority, our approach combining publicly available data on variant frequency and a multi-country clinical characterisation dataset with more than 100,000 records allowed analysis of data from a wide range of settings and novel insights on real-world heterogeneity of COVID-19 presentation and clinical outcome

A Survey of Empirical Results on Program Slicing

International audienceBACKGROUND:Patients with peripheral artery disease have an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Antiplatelet agents are widely used to reduce these complications.METHODS:This was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial for which patients were recruited at 602 hospitals, clinics, or community practices from 33 countries across six continents. Eligible patients had a history of peripheral artery disease of the lower extremities (previous peripheral bypass surgery or angioplasty, limb or foot amputation, intermittent claudication with objective evidence of peripheral artery disease), of the carotid arteries (previous carotid artery revascularisation or asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis of at least 50%), or coronary artery disease with an ankle-brachial index of less than 0·90. After a 30-day run-in period, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive oral rivaroxaban (2·5 mg twice a day) plus aspirin (100 mg once a day), rivaroxaban twice a day (5 mg with aspirin placebo once a day), or to aspirin once a day (100 mg and rivaroxaban placebo twice a day). Randomisation was computer generated. Each treatment group was double dummy, and the patient, investigators, and central study staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke; the primary peripheral artery disease outcome was major adverse limb events including major amputation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01776424, and is closed to new participants.FINDINGS:Between March 12, 2013, and May 10, 2016, we enrolled 7470 patients with peripheral artery disease from 558 centres. The combination of rivaroxaban plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone reduced the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (126 [5%] of 2492 vs 174 [7%] of 2504; hazard ratio [HR] 0·72, 95% CI 0·57-0·90, p=0·0047), and major adverse limb events including major amputation (32 [1%] vs 60 [2%]; HR 0·54 95% CI 0·35-0·82, p=0·0037). Rivaroxaban 5 mg twice a day compared with aspirin alone did not significantly reduce the composite endpoint (149 [6%] of 2474 vs 174 [7%] of 2504; HR 0·86, 95% CI 0·69-1·08, p=0·19), but reduced major adverse limb events including major amputation (40 [2%] vs 60 [2%]; HR 0·67, 95% CI 0·45-1·00, p=0·05). The median duration of treatment was 21 months. The use of the rivaroxaban plus aspirin combination increased major bleeding compared with the aspirin alone group (77 [3%] of 2492 vs 48 [2%] of 2504; HR 1·61, 95% CI 1·12-2·31, p=0·0089), which was mainly gastrointestinal. Similarly, major bleeding occurred in 79 (3%) of 2474 patients with rivaroxaban 5 mg, and in 48 (2%) of 2504 in the aspirin alone group (HR 1·68, 95% CI 1·17-2·40; p=0·0043).INTERPRETATION:Low-dose rivaroxaban taken twice a day plus aspirin once a day reduced major adverse cardiovascular and limb events when compared with aspirin alone. Although major bleeding was increased, fatal or critical organ bleeding was not. This combination therapy represents an important advance in the management of patients with peripheral artery disease. Rivaroxaban alone did not significantly reduce major adverse cardiovascular events compared with asprin alone, but reduced major adverse limb events and increased major bleeding

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

ISARIC-COVID-19 dataset: A Prospective, Standardized, Global Dataset of Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19

The International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) COVID-19 dataset is one of the largest international databases of prospectively collected clinical data on people hospitalized with COVID-19. This dataset was compiled during the COVID-19 pandemic by a network of hospitals that collect data using the ISARIC-World Health Organization Clinical Characterization Protocol and data tools. The database includes data from more than 705,000 patients, collected in more than 60 countries and 1,500 centres worldwide. Patient data are available from acute hospital admissions with COVID-19 and outpatient follow-ups. The data include signs and symptoms, pre-existing comorbidities, vital signs, chronic and acute treatments, complications, dates of hospitalization and discharge, mortality, viral strains, vaccination status, and other data. Here, we present the dataset characteristics, explain its architecture and how to gain access, and provide tools to facilitate its use

Apolipoprotein B, Residual Cardiovascular Risk After Acute Coronary Syndrome, and Effects of Alirocumab.

Background: Apolipoprotein B (apoB) provides an integrated measure of atherogenic risk. Whether apoB levels and apoB lowering hold incremental predictive information on residual risk after acute coronary syndrome beyond that provided by low-density lipoprotein cholesterol is uncertain. Methods: The ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab) compared the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor alirocumab with placebo in 18 924 patients with recent acute coronary syndrome and elevated atherogenic lipoproteins despite optimized statin therapy. Primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; coronary heart disease death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal/nonfatal ischemic stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina). Associations between baseline apoB or apoB at 4 months and MACE were assessed in adjusted Cox proportional hazards and propensity score–matched models. Results: Median follow-up was 2.8 years. In proportional hazards analysis in the placebo group, MACE incidence increased across increasing baseline apoB strata (3.2 [95% CI, 2.9–3.6], 4.0 [95% CI, 3.6–4.5], and 5.5 [95% CI, 5.0–6.1] events per 100 patient-years in strata 35–<50, and ≤35 mg/dL, respectively). Compared with propensity score–matched patients from the placebo group, treatment hazard ratios for alirocumab also decreased monotonically across achieved apoB strata. Achieved apoB was predictive of MACE after adjustment for achieved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol or non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol but not vice versa. Conclusions: In patients with recent acute coronary syndrome and elevated atherogenic lipoproteins, MACE increased across baseline apoB strata. Alirocumab reduced MACE across all strata of baseline apoB, with larger absolute reductions in patients with higher baseline levels. Lower achieved apoB was associated with lower risk of MACE, even after accounting for achieved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol or non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, indicating that apoB provides incremental information. Achievement of apoB levels as low as ≤35 mg/dL may reduce lipoprotein-attributable residual risk after acute coronary syndrome. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01663402.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01663402.URL: https://www