Middle School Student Records as Dropout Indicators

Dropping out of school is associated with a wide array of negative outcomes and the extraordinarily high United States dropout rate has brought the issue to the forefront of American education. This study investigated normally collected middle school data from a suburban Colorado school district to determine the predictive value toward students dropping out or graduating from high school. Accessed was a longitudinal data set of first year in middle school records, 7th grade, from 1999-2003 for students that graduated or dropped out from a Colorado suburban high school from 2003-2007. Discriminate function analysis was utilized on 2,195 student school records, that included 106 dropout and 2,089 graduate student academic and demographic data, to determine the strength of the data to predict group membership. Middle school student\u27s metamorphosis from child to adolescent is a uniquely critical time in a student\u27s growth due to physical, social, psychological, and brain synaptic pruning. Dropping out of school is influenced by a wide array of external and internal school concerns but if clear set of red flags were available for easy identification of at risk students concerned school personal may best bring interventions to bear in the middle school setting. This study found that for this data set there was a slight correlation between grades in Language Arts and Math with a greater predictive power from Social Studies, Science, and Physical Education, subjects often overlooked in other studies. The conclusion stated that a clear set of warning signals was found with a strong enough probability of dropout identification to be considered as warning indicators and therefore all indicators need to be considered for every child on an individual level

The Changing Landscape for Stroke\ua0Prevention in AF: Findings From the GLORIA-AF Registry Phase 2

Background GLORIA-AF (Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) is a prospective, global registry program describing antithrombotic treatment patterns in patients with newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke. Phase 2 began when dabigatran, the first non\u2013vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC), became available. Objectives This study sought to describe phase 2 baseline data and compare these with the pre-NOAC era collected during phase 1. Methods During phase 2, 15,641 consenting patients were enrolled (November 2011 to December 2014); 15,092 were eligible. This pre-specified cross-sectional analysis describes eligible patients\u2019 baseline characteristics. Atrial fibrillation disease characteristics, medical outcomes, and concomitant diseases and medications were collected. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results Of the total patients, 45.5% were female; median age was 71 (interquartile range: 64, 78) years. Patients were from Europe (47.1%), North America (22.5%), Asia (20.3%), Latin America (6.0%), and the Middle East/Africa (4.0%). Most had high stroke risk (CHA2DS2-VASc [Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age  6575 years, Diabetes mellitus, previous Stroke, Vascular disease, Age 65 to 74 years, Sex category] score  652; 86.1%); 13.9% had moderate risk (CHA2DS2-VASc = 1). Overall, 79.9% received oral anticoagulants, of whom 47.6% received NOAC and 32.3% vitamin K antagonists (VKA); 12.1% received antiplatelet agents; 7.8% received no antithrombotic treatment. For comparison, the proportion of phase 1 patients (of N = 1,063 all eligible) prescribed VKA was 32.8%, acetylsalicylic acid 41.7%, and no therapy 20.2%. In Europe in phase 2, treatment with NOAC was more common than VKA (52.3% and 37.8%, respectively); 6.0% of patients received antiplatelet treatment; and 3.8% received no antithrombotic treatment. In North America, 52.1%, 26.2%, and 14.0% of patients received NOAC, VKA, and antiplatelet drugs, respectively; 7.5% received no antithrombotic treatment. NOAC use was less common in Asia (27.7%), where 27.5% of patients received VKA, 25.0% antiplatelet drugs, and 19.8% no antithrombotic treatment. Conclusions The baseline data from GLORIA-AF phase 2 demonstrate that in newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients, NOAC have been highly adopted into practice, becoming more frequently prescribed than VKA in Europe and North America. Worldwide, however, a large proportion of patients remain undertreated, particularly in Asia and North America. (Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation [GLORIA-AF]; NCT01468701

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Correction to: Comparative effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin K antagonists for atrial fibrillation in clinical practice: GLORIA-AF Registry

International audienceIn this article, the name of the GLORIA-AF investigator Anastasios Kollias was given incorrectly as Athanasios Kollias in the Acknowledgements. The original article has been corrected

Patterns of oral anticoagulant use and outcomes in Asian patients with atrial fibrillation: a post-hoc analysis from the GLORIA-AF Registry

Background: Previous studies suggested potential ethnic differences in the management and outcomes of atrial fibrillation (AF). We aim to analyse oral anticoagulant (OAC) prescription, discontinuation, and risk of adverse outcomes in Asian patients with AF, using data from a global prospective cohort study. Methods: From the GLORIA-AF Registry Phase II-III (November 2011-December 2014 for Phase II, and January 2014-December 2016 for Phase III), we analysed patients according to their self-reported ethnicity (Asian vs. non-Asian), as well as according to Asian subgroups (Chinese, Japanese, Korean and other Asian). Logistic regression was used to analyse OAC prescription, while the risk of OAC discontinuation and adverse outcomes were analysed through Cox-regression model. Our primary outcome was the composite of all-cause death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The original studies were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01468701, NCT01671007, and NCT01937377. Findings: 34,421 patients were included (70.0 ± 10.5 years, 45.1% females, 6900 (20.0%) Asian: 3829 (55.5%) Chinese, 814 (11.8%) Japanese, 1964 (28.5%) Korean and 293 (4.2%) other Asian). Most of the Asian patients were recruited in Asia (n = 6701, 97.1%), while non-Asian patients were mainly recruited in Europe (n = 15,449, 56.1%) and North America (n = 8378, 30.4%). Compared to non-Asian individuals, prescription of OAC and non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) was lower in Asian patients (Odds Ratio [OR] and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI): 0.23 [0.22-0.25] and 0.66 [0.61-0.71], respectively), but higher in the Japanese subgroup. Asian ethnicity was also associated with higher risk of OAC discontinuation (Hazard Ratio [HR] and [95% CI]: 1.79 [1.67-1.92]), and lower risk of the primary composite outcome (HR [95% CI]: 0.86 [0.76-0.96]). Among the exploratory secondary outcomes, Asian ethnicity was associated with higher risks of thromboembolism and intracranial haemorrhage, and lower risk of major bleeding. Interpretation: Our results showed that Asian patients with AF showed suboptimal thromboembolic risk management and a specific risk profile of adverse outcomes; these differences may also reflect differences in country-specific factors. Ensuring integrated and appropriate treatment of these patients is crucial to improve their prognosis. Funding: The GLORIA-AF Registry was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH