Ambient particulate matter air pollution exposure and mortality in the NIH-AARP diet and health cohort

BACKGROUND: Outdoor fine particulate matter (≤ 2.5 μm; PM2.5) has been identified as a global health threat, but the number of large U.S. prospective cohort studies with individual participant data remains limited, especially at lower recent exposures. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to test the relationship between long-term exposure PM2.5 and death risk from all nonaccidental causes, cardiovascular (CVD), and respiratory diseases in 517,041 men and women enrolled in the National Institutes of Health-AARP cohort. METHODS: Individual participant data were linked with residence PM2.5 exposure estimates across the continental United States for a 2000–2009 follow-up period when matching census tract–level PM2.5 exposure data were available. Participants enrolled ranged from 50 to 71 years of age, residing in six U.S. states and two cities. Cox proportional hazard models yielded hazard ratio (HR) estimates per 10 μg/m3 of PM2.5 exposure. RESULTS: PM2.5 exposure was significantly associated with total mortality (HR = 1.03; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.05) and CVD mortality (HR = 1.10; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.15), but the association with respiratory mortality was not statistically significant (HR = 1.05; 95% CI: 0.98, 1.13). A significant association was found with respiratory mortality only among never smokers (HR = 1.27; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.56). Associations with 10-μg/m3 PM2.5 exposures in yearly participant residential annual mean, or in metropolitan area-wide mean, were consistent with baseline exposure model results. Associations with PM2.5 were similar when adjusted for ozone exposures. Analyses of California residents alone also yielded statistically significant PM2.5 mortality HRs for total and CVD mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term exposure to PM2.5 air pollution was associated with an increased risk of total and CVD mortality, providing an independent test of the PM2.5–mortality relationship in a new large U.S. prospective cohort experiencing lower post-2000 PM2.5 exposure levels. CITATION: Thurston GD, Ahn J, Cromar KR, Shao Y, Reynolds HR, Jerrett M, Lim CC, Shanley R, Park Y, Hayes RB. 2016. Ambient particulate matter air pollution exposure and mortality in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health cohort. Environ Health Perspect 124:484–490; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.150967

Health Status Outcomes With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in ISCHEMIA

In ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches), an invasive strategy demonstrated better health status outcomes than a conservative strategy in patients with chronic coronary disease (CCD). Some previous studies have shown greater health status benefits with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) than percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether the health status benefits of invasive management in ISCHEMIA were driven primarily by participants treated with CABG is unknown.The aim of this analysis was to describe the health status outcomes of participants treated with a conservative strategy (n=2232) compared with invasively managed participants treated with PCI (n=1198) or CABG (n=340) in ISCHEMIA. The Seattle Angina Questionnaire-7 summary score (SAQ-SS) and angina frequency score (SAQ-AF) were the primary outcomes, with higher scores indicating better health status. Proportional odds models comparing 1- and 3-year outcomes were fit, adjusting for demographic, clinical, and angiographic characteristics.SAQ-SS in the conservative, PCI, and CABG groups increased by 9.9±18.1, 15.7±19.3, and 16.1±19.1 points at 1 year and 11.5±20.2, 16.5±21.8, and 15.0±19.4 points at 3 years, respectively. Freedom from angina in the conservative, PCI, and CABG groups was noted in 61.4%, 73.3%, and 82.4% at 1 year and 70.4%, 76.1%, 81.4% at 3 years, respectively. In risk-adjusted analyses, PCI and CABG were each associated with a higher SAQ-SS and SAQ-AF at 1 and 3 years compared with conservative management. SAQ-AF was higher with CABG than PCI at 1 year (odds ratio, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.03, 2.31]), but no differences between CABG and PCI were observed in SAQ-SS (odds ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.78, 1.57]) or SAQ-AF (odds ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.58, 1.54]) at 3 years.In ISCHEMIA, both PCI and CABG were associated with better 3-year health status than conservative management. Better angina relief with CABG than PCI was seen at 1, but not 3, years.URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522

Natural History of Patients with Ischemia and No Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease: The CIAO-ISCHEMIA Study

Background: Ischemia with no obstructive coronary artery disease (INOCA) is common and has an adverse prognosis. We set out to describe the natural history of symptoms and ischemia in INOCA. Methods: CIAO-ISCHEMIA (Changes in Ischemia and Angina over One year in ISCHEMIA trial screen failures with INOCA) was an international cohort study conducted from 2014-2019 involving angina assessments (Seattle Angina Questionnaire [SAQ]) and stress echocardiograms 1-year apart. This was an ancillary study that included patients with history of angina who were not randomized in the ISCHEMIA trial. Stress-induced wall motion abnormalities were determined by an echocardiographic core laboratory blinded to symptoms, coronary artery disease (CAD) status and test timing. Medical therapy was at the discretion of treating physicians. The primary outcome was the correlation between changes in SAQ Angina Frequency score and change in echocardiographic ischemia. We also analyzed predictors of 1-year changes in both angina and ischemia, and compared CIAO participants with ISCHEMIA participants with obstructive CAD who had stress echocardiography before enrollment, as CIAO participants did. Results: INOCA participants in CIAO were more often female (66% of 208 vs. 26% of 865 ISCHEMIA participants with obstructive CAD, p\u3c0.001), but the magnitude of ischemia was similar (median 4 ischemic segments [IQR 3-5] both groups). Ischemia and angina were not significantly correlated at enrollment in CIAO (p=0.46) or ISCHEMIA stress echocardiography participants (p=0.35). At 1 year, the stress echocardiogram was normal in half of CIAO participants and 23% had moderate or severe ischemia (≥3 ischemic segments). Angina improved in 43% and worsened in 14%. Change in ischemia over one year was not significantly correlated with change in angina (rho=0.029). Conclusions: Improvement in ischemia and improvement in angina were common in INOCA, but not correlated. Our INOCA cohort had a similar degree of inducible wall motion abnormalities to concurrently enrolled ISCHEMIA participants with obstructive CAD. Our results highlight the complex nature of INOCA pathophysiology and the multifactorial nature of angina

Sex Differences in Revascularization, Treatment Goals, and Outcomes of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: Insights From the ISCHEMIA Trial

BACKGROUND: Women with chronic coronary disease are generally older than men and have more comorbidities but less atherosclerosis. We explored sex differences in revascularization, guideline-directed medical therapy, and outcomes among patients with chronic coronary disease with ischemia on stress testing, with and without invasive management. METHODS AND RESULTS: The ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial randomized patients with moderate or severe ischemia to invasive management with angiography, revascularization, and guideline-directed medical therapy, or initial conservative management with guideline-directed medical therapy alone. We evaluated the primary outcome (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest) and other end points, by sex, in 1168 (22.6%) women and 4011 (77.4%) men. Invasive group catheterization rates were similar, with less revascularization among women (73.4% of invasive-assigned women revascularized versus 81.2% of invasive-assigned men; CONCLUSIONS: Women had less extensive coronary artery disease and, therefore, lower revascularization rates in the invasive group. Despite lower risk factor goal attainment, women with chronic coronary disease experienced similar risk-adjusted outcomes to men in the ISCHEMIA trial

Heparin Dose Intensity and Organ Support-Free Days in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND Clinical trials suggest that therapeutic-dose heparin may prevent critical illness and vascular complications due to COVID-19, but knowledge gaps exist regarding the efficacy of therapeutic heparin including its comparative effect relative to intermediate-dose anticoagulation. OBJECTIVES The authors performed 2 complementary secondary analyses of a completed randomized clinical trial: 1) a prespecified per-protocol analysis; and 2) an exploratory dose-based analysis to compare the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin with low- and intermediate-dose heparin. METHODS Patients who received initial anticoagulation dosed consistently with randomization were included. The primary outcome was organ support-free days (OSFDs), a combination of in-hospital death and days free of organ support through day 21. RESULTS Among 2,860 participants, 1,761 (92.8%) noncritically ill and 857 (89.1%) critically ill patients were treated per-protocol. Among noncritically ill per-protocol patients, the posterior probability that therapeutic-dose heparin improved OSFDs as compared with usual care was 99.3% (median adjusted OR: 1.36; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 1.07-1.74). Therapeutic heparin had a high posterior probability of efficacy relative to both low- (94.6%; adjusted OR: 1.26; 95% CrI: 0.95-1.64) and intermediate- (99.8%; adjusted OR: 1.80; 95% CrI: 1.22-2.62) dose thromboprophylaxis. Among critically ill per-protocol patients, the posterior probability that therapeutic heparin improved outcomes was low. CONCLUSIONS Among noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 who were randomized to and initially received therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, heparin, compared with usual care, was associated with improved OSFDs, a combination of in-hospital death and days free of organ support. Therapeutic heparin appeared superior to both low- and intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis

Comparative Definitions for Moderate-Severe Ischemia in Stress Nuclear, Echocardiography, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging

The lack of standardized reporting of the magnitude of ischemia on noninvasive imaging contributes to variability in translating the severity of ischemia across stress imaging modalities. We identified the risk of coronary artery disease (CAD) death or myocardial infarction (MI) associated with ≥10% ischemic myocardium on stress nuclear imaging as the risk threshold for stress echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance. A narrative review revealed that ≥10% ischemic myocardium on stress nuclear imaging was associated with a median rate of CAD death or MI of 4.9%/year (interquartile range: 3.75% to 5.3%). For stress echocardiography, ≥3 newly dysfunctional segments portend a median rate of CAD death or MI of 4.5%/year (interquartile range: 3.8% to 5.9%). Although imprecisely delineated, moderate-severe ischemia on cardiac magnetic resonance may be indicated by ≥4 of 32 stress perfusion defects or ≥3 dobutamine-induced dysfunctional segments. Risk-based thresholds can define equivalent amounts of ischemia across the stress imaging modalities, which will help to translate a common understanding of patient risk on which to guide subsequent management decisions

Heparin Dose Intensity and Organ Support-Free Days in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19

Background: Clinical trials suggest that therapeutic-dose heparin may prevent critical illness and vascular complications due to COVID-19, but knowledge gaps exist regarding the efficacy of therapeutic heparin including its comparative effect relative to intermediate-dose anticoagulation. Objectives: The authors performed 2 complementary secondary analyses of a completed randomized clinical trial: 1) a prespecified per-protocol analysis; and 2) an exploratory dose-based analysis to compare the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin with low- and intermediate-dose heparin. Methods: Patients who received initial anticoagulation dosed consistently with randomization were included. The primary outcome was organ support-free days (OSFDs), a combination of in-hospital death and days free of organ support through day 21. Results: Among 2,860 participants, 1,761 (92.8%) noncritically ill and 857 (89.1%) critically ill patients were treated per-protocol. Among noncritically ill per-protocol patients, the posterior probability that therapeutic-dose heparin improved OSFDs as compared with usual care was 99.3% (median adjusted OR: 1.36; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 1.07-1.74). Therapeutic heparin had a high posterior probability of efficacy relative to both low- (94.6%; adjusted OR: 1.26; 95% CrI: 0.95-1.64) and intermediate- (99.8%; adjusted OR: 1.80; 95% CrI: 1.22-2.62) dose thromboprophylaxis. Among critically ill per-protocol patients, the posterior probability that therapeutic heparin improved outcomes was low. Conclusions: Among noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 who were randomized to and initially received therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, heparin, compared with usual care, was associated with improved OSFDs, a combination of in-hospital death and days free of organ support. Therapeutic heparin appeared superior to both low- and intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis

Sex Differences in Revascularization, Treatment Goals, and Outcomes of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: Insights From the ISCHEMIA Trial

Background: Women with chronic coronary disease are generally older than men and have more comorbidities but less atherosclerosis. We explored sex differences in revascularization, guideline-directed medical therapy, and outcomes among patients with chronic coronary disease with ischemia on stress testing, with and without invasive management. Methods and results: The ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial randomized patients with moderate or severe ischemia to invasive management with angiography, revascularization, and guideline-directed medical therapy, or initial conservative management with guideline-directed medical therapy alone. We evaluated the primary outcome (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest) and other end points, by sex, in 1168 (22.6%) women and 4011 (77.4%) men. Invasive group catheterization rates were similar, with less revascularization among women (73.4% of invasive-assigned women revascularized versus 81.2% of invasive-assigned men; P<0.001). Women had less coronary artery disease: multivessel in 60.0% of invasive-assigned women and 74.8% of invasive-assigned men, and no ≥50% stenosis in 12.3% versus 4.5% (P<0.001). In the conservative group, 4-year catheterization rates were 26.3% of women versus 25.6% of men (P=0.72). Guideline-directed medical therapy use was lower among women with fewer risk factor goals attained. There were no sex differences in the primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for women versus men, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.77-1.13]; P=0.47) or the major secondary outcome of cardiovascular death/myocardial infarction (adjusted HR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.76-1.14]; P=0.49), with no significant sex-by-treatment-group interactions. Conclusions: Women had less extensive coronary artery disease and, therefore, lower revascularization rates in the invasive group. Despite lower risk factor goal attainment, women with chronic coronary disease experienced similar risk-adjusted outcomes to men in the ISCHEMIA trial. Registration: URL: http://wwwclinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01471522

Heterogeneous treatment effects of therapeutic-dose heparin in patients hospitalized for COVID-19

Importance Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of therapeutic-dose heparin in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 produced conflicting results, possibly due to heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) across individuals. Better understanding of HTE could facilitate individualized clinical decision-making. Objective To evaluate HTE of therapeutic-dose heparin for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and to compare approaches to assessing HTE. Design, Setting, and Participants Exploratory analysis of a multiplatform adaptive RCT of therapeutic-dose heparin vs usual care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in 3320 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 enrolled in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia between April 2020 and January 2021. Heterogeneity of treatment effect was assessed 3 ways: using (1) conventional subgroup analyses of baseline characteristics, (2) a multivariable outcome prediction model (risk-based approach), and (3) a multivariable causal forest model (effect-based approach). Analyses primarily used bayesian statistics, consistent with the original trial. Exposures Participants were randomized to therapeutic-dose heparin or usual care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. Main Outcomes and Measures Organ support–free days, assigning a value of −1 to those who died in the hospital and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 for those who survived to hospital discharge; and hospital survival. Results Baseline demographic characteristics were similar between patients randomized to therapeutic-dose heparin or usual care (median age, 60 years; 38% female; 32% known non-White race; 45% Hispanic). In the overall multiplatform RCT population, therapeutic-dose heparin was not associated with an increase in organ support–free days (median value for the posterior distribution of the OR, 1.05; 95% credible interval, 0.91-1.22). In conventional subgroup analyses, the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin on organ support–free days differed between patients requiring organ support at baseline or not (median OR, 0.85 vs 1.30; posterior probability of difference in OR, 99.8%), between females and males (median OR, 0.87 vs 1.16; posterior probability of difference in OR, 96.4%), and between patients with lower body mass index (BMI 90% for all comparisons). In risk-based analysis, patients at lowest risk of poor outcome had the highest propensity for benefit from heparin (lowest risk decile: posterior probability of OR >1, 92%) while those at highest risk were most likely to be harmed (highest risk decile: posterior probability of OR <1, 87%). In effect-based analysis, a subset of patients identified at high risk of harm (P = .05 for difference in treatment effect) tended to have high BMI and were more likely to require organ support at baseline. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin was heterogeneous. In all 3 approaches to assessing HTE, heparin was more likely to be beneficial in those who were less severely ill at presentation or had lower BMI and more likely to be harmful in sicker patients and those with higher BMI. The findings illustrate the importance of considering HTE in the design and analysis of RCTs. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, NCT0437258