A population-based study of 92 clinically recognised risk factors for heart failure: co-occurrence, prognosis and preventive potential

BACKGROUND: Primary prevention strategies for heart failure(HF) have had limited success, possibly due to a wide range of underlying risk factors(RFs). Systematic evaluations of the prognostic burden and preventive potential across this wide range of risk factors are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To estimate evidence, prevalence and co-occurrence for primary prevention and impact on prognosis of RFs for incident HF. METHODS: We systematically reviewed trials and observational evidence of primary HF prevention across 92 putative aetiologic RFs for HF identified from US and European clinical practice guidelines. We identified 170 885 individuals aged ≥30 years with incident HF from 1997-2017, using linked primary and secondary care UK electronic health records(EHR) and rule-based phenotypes(ICD-10, Read Version 2, OPCS-4 procedure and medication codes) for each of 92 RFs. RESULTS: Only 10/92 factors had high quality observational evidence for association with incident HF; 7 had effective RCT-based interventions for HF prevention(RCT-HF), and 6 for CVD prevention, but not HF(RCT-CVD), and the remainder had no RCT-based preventive interventions(RCT-0). We were able to map 91/92 risk factors to EHR using 5961 terms, and 88/91 factors were represented by at least one patient. In the 5 years prior to HF diagnosis, 44.3% had ≥4 RFs. By RCT evidence, the most common RCT-HF RFs were hypertension(48.5%), stable angina(34.9%), unstable angina(16.8%), myocardial infarction(15.8%), and diabetes(15.1%); RCT-CVD RFs were smoking(46.4%) and obesity(29.9%); and RCT-0 RFs were atrial arrhythmias(17.2%), cancer(16.5%),), heavy alcohol intake(14.9%). Mortality at 1 year varied across all 91 factors(lowest: pregnancy-related hormonal disorder 4.2%; highest: phaeochromocytoma 73.7%). Among new HF cases, 28.5% had no RCT-HF RFs and 38.6% had no RCT-CVD RFs. 15.6% had either no RF or only RCT-0 RFs. CONCLUSION: 1 in 6 individuals with HF have no recorded RFs or RFs without trials. We provide a systematic map of primary preventive opportunities across a wide range of RFs for HF, demonstrating a high burden of co-occurrence and the need for trials tackling multiple RFs

Critical evaluation of key evidence on the human health hazards of exposure to bisphenol A

Despite the fact that more than 5000 safety-related studies have been published on bisphenol A (BPA), there seems to be no resolution of the apparently deadlocked controversy as to whether exposure of the general population to BPA causes adverse effects due to its estrogenicity. Therefore, the Advisory Committee of the German Society of Toxicology reviewed the background and cutting-edge topics of this BPA controversy. The current tolerable daily intake value (TDI) of 0.05 mg/kg body weight [bw]/day, derived by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), is mainly based on body weight changes in two- and three-generation studies in mice and rats. Recently, these studies and the derivation of the TDI have been criticized. After having carefully considered all arguments, the Committee had to conclude that the criticism was scientifically not justified; moreover, recently published additional data further support the reliability of the two-and three-generation studies demonstrating a lack of estrogen-dependent effects at and below doses on which the current TDI is based. A frequently discussed topic is whether doses below 5 mg/ kg bw/day may cause adverse health effects in laboratory animals. Meanwhile, it has become clear that positive results from some explorative studies have not been confirmed in subsequent studies with higher numbers of animals or a priori defined hypotheses. Particularly relevant are some recent studies with negative outcomes that addressed effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and the prostate in rodents for extrapolation to the human situation. The Committee came to the conclusion that rodent data can well be used as a basis for human risk evaluation. Currently published conjectures that rats are insensitive to estrogens compared to humans can be refuted. Data from toxicokinetics studies show that the half-life of BPA in adult human subjects is less than 2 hours and BPA is completely recovered in urine as BPA-conjugates. Tissue deconjugation of BPA-glucuronide and -sulfate may occur. Because of the extremely low quantities, it is only of minor relevance for BPA toxicity. Biomonitoring studies have been used to estimate human BPA exposure and show that the daily intake of BPA is far below the TDI for the general population. Further topics addressed in this article include reasons why some studies on BPA are not reproducible; the relevance of oral versus non-oral exposure routes; the degree to which newborns are at higher systemic BPA exposure; increased BPA exposure by infusions in intensive care units; mechanisms of action other than estrogen receptor activation; and the current regulatory status in Europe, as well as in the USA, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and Australia. Overall, the Committee concluded that the current TDI for BPA is adequately justified and that the available evidence indicates that BPA exposure represents no noteworthy risk to the health of the human population, including newborns and babies

Psychological impact of visible differences in patients with congenital craniofacial anomalies

© 2015, Singh and Moss; licensee Springer. Background: Patients with craniofacial anomalies often have appearance concerns and related social anxiety which can affect their quality of life. This study assessed the psychological impact of facial and dental appearance in patients with craniofacial anomalies in comparison to a general population control group. Methods: The study involved 102 adult patients (51% male) with congenital craniofacial anomalies and 102 controls (49% male). Both groups completed the Nepali version of Derriford Appearance Scale (DAS) and the Psychological Impact of Dental Aesthetic Questionnaire (PIDAQ) in a clinical setting to assess appearance-related distress, avoidance, and anxiety. Results: There was a significant difference between patients and controls on both PIDAQ (mean score for patients 33.25 ± 9.45 while for controls 27.52 ± 5.67, p < 0.001) and DAS59 scores (mean score for patients 159.16 ± 31.54 while for controls 77.64 ± 6.57, p < 0.001), indicating that patients experienced greater negative psychological impact of living with their appearance (PIDAQ) and more appearance-related distress (DAS) than controls. DAS scores were not associated with gender. There was no association of the place of residence (rural vs. urban) with PIDAQ or DAS59 scores. Conclusions: There is a significant psychological impact of altered facial and dental appearance in patients with craniofacial anomalies compared to controls. There was no effect of locality (rural/urban) on the psychological impact of facial and dental appearance in patients

CODE-EHR best practice framework for the use of structured electronic healthcare records in clinical research.

Big data is central to new developments in global clinical science aiming to improve the lives of patients. Technological advances have led to the routine use of structured electronic healthcare records with the potential to address key gaps in clinical evidence. The covid-19 pandemic has demonstrated the potential of big data and related analytics, but also important pitfalls. Verification, validation, and data privacy, as well as the social mandate to undertake research are key challenges. The European Society of Cardiology and the BigData@Heart consortium have brought together a range of international stakeholders, including patient representatives, clinicians, scientists, regulators, journal editors and industry. We propose the CODE-EHR Minimum Standards Framework as a means to improve the design of studies, enhance transparency and develop a roadmap towards more robust and effective utilisation of healthcare data for research purposes

CODE-EHR best-practice framework for the use of structured electronic health-care records in clinical research.

Big data is important to new developments in global clinical science that aim to improve the lives of patients. Technological advances have led to the regular use of structured electronic health-care records with the potential to address key deficits in clinical evidence that could improve patient care. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown this potential in big data and related analytics but has also revealed important limitations. Data verification, data validation, data privacy, and a mandate from the public to conduct research are important challenges to effective use of routine health-care data. The European Society of Cardiology and the BigData@Heart consortium have brought together a range of international stakeholders, including representation from patients, clinicians, scientists, regulators, journal editors, and industry members. In this Review, we propose the CODE-EHR minimum standards framework to be used by researchers and clinicians to improve the design of studies and enhance transparency of study methods. The CODE-EHR framework aims to develop robust and effective utilisation of health-care data for research purposes

A path forward in the debate over health impacts of endocrine disrupting chemicals

Several recent publications reflect debate on the issue of “endocrine disrupting chemicals” (EDCs), indicating that two seemingly mutually exclusive perspectives are being articulated separately and independently. Considering this, a group of scientists with expertise in basic science, medicine and risk assessment reviewed the various aspects of the debate to identify the most significant areas of dispute and to propose a path forward. We identified four areas of debate. The first is about the definitions for terms such as “endocrine disrupting chemical”, “adverse effects”, and “endocrine system”. The second is focused on elements of hormone action including “potency”, “endpoints”, “timing”, “dose” and “thresholds”. The third addresses the information needed to establish sufficient evidence of harm. Finally, the fourth focuses on the need to develop and the characteristics of transparent, systematic methods to review the EDC literature. Herein we identify areas of general consensus and propose resolutions for these four areas that would allow the field to move beyond the current and, in our opinion, ineffective debate