scholarly journals Catheter Management and Risk Stratification of Patients With in Inpatient Treatment Due to Acute Epididymitis

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike Wenzel ◽  
Marina Deuker ◽  
Maria N. Welte ◽  
Benedikt Hoeh ◽  
Felix Preisser ◽  
...  

Objective: This study aims to evaluate catheter management in acute epididymitis (AE) patients requiring inpatient treatment and risk factors predicting severity of disease.Material and Methods: Patients with diagnosed AE and inpatient treatment between 2004 and 2019 at the University Hospital Frankfurt were analyzed. A risk score, rating severity of AE, including residual urine > 100 ml, fever > 38.0°C, C-reactive protein (CRP) > 5 mg/dl, and white blood count (WBC) > 10/nl was introduced.Results: Of 334 patients, 107 (32%) received a catheter (transurethral (TC): n = 53, 16%, suprapubic (SPC): n = 54, 16%). Catheter patients were older, exhibited more comorbidities, and had higher CRP and WBC compared with the non-catheter group (NC). Median length of stay (LOS) was longer in the catheter group (7 vs. 6 days, p < 0.001), whereas necessity of abscess surgery and recurrent epididymitis did not differ. No differences in those parameters were recorded between TC and SPC. According to our established risk score, 147 (44%) patients exhibited 0–1 (low-risk) and 187 (56%) 2–4 risk factors (high-risk). In the high-risk group, patients received a catheter significantly more often than with low-risk (TC: 22 vs. 9%; SPC: 19 vs. 12%, both p ≤ 0.01). Catheter or high-risk patients exhibited positive urine cultures more frequently than NC or low-risk patients. LOS was comparable between high-risk patients with catheter and low-risk NC patients.Conclusion: Patients with AE who received a catheter at admission were older, multimorbid, and exhibited more severe symptoms of disease compared with the NC patients. A protective effect of catheters might be attributable to patients with adverse risk constellations or high burden of comorbidities. The introduced risk score indicates a possibility for risk stratification.

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (7) ◽  

Introduction: Patients undergoing hemodialysis are at increased risk of stroke. However, less known about the impact of some of the stroke risk factors, and the value of stroke risk scores in determining the risk in those patients. Our main goal. To assess the risk factors for stroke in hemodialysis patients and the use of the new CHA2DS2-VASc score for stroke assessment. Methods: Single center, retrospective cohort study of 336 patients undergoing hemodialysis from June 24, 2018, to September 6, 2018, was recruited. Baseline demographics, clinical, and laboratory data were collected. We calculated the CHA2 DS2 -VASc score for stroke assessment in all patients and categorized them into high, moderate and low risk patients according to CHA2 DS2 - VASc score and subcategorized them to two groups atrial fibrillation (AFib) and Non- Atrial fibrillation (Non AFib) patients. Results: 336 patients were included in our study; the majority of patients were at high risk with a CHA2 DS2 -VASc Score mean of 2.9± 1.5, although history of stroke was observed only in 15 patients (4.46%). According to CHA2 DS2 - VASc score, 280 patients were at high risk, 172 (51.19%) were high-risk patients on treatment (anticoagulant or antiplatelet) and 108(32.14%) patients were high risk patients not on treatment 48 were at moderate risk (14.28%) and 8 were at low risk (2.38 %). Patients were divided into subgroups as non-AFib and AFib. In non-AFib patients 320 (95.23%), high-risk patients 103 (32.18%) were not treated; high-risk patients with treatment are 162 (50.62%), moderate patients were 47 (14.68%), 8(2.5%) was in low risk. AFib patients were 16 with a mean CHA2 DS2 -VASc score of 4.4±1.1. Patients with AFib were all at high risk except 1 was at moderate risk (6.25%). There were 11 (68.75%) patients on treatment and 5 (31.25%) patients not on treatment. The risk factors for stroke that were statistically significant in increasing score risk for all patients were: age > 65 (95% CI, -2.04– -1.29; p = 0.000), being female (95% CI, -1.36– -0.68; p = 0.000) hypertension (95% CI, -2.59– -1.37; p = 0.000), diabetes (95% CI, -2.10– -1.50; p = 0.000), CVD (95% CI, -2.07– -1.24; p=0.000), history of stroke or TIA (95% CI, -3.70– -2.03; p = 0.000), CHF or LVEF (95% CI, -2.28– - 0.91; p = 0.000). Conclusions: The risk of stroke in hemodialysis patients is significant according to the use of CHA2 DS2 -VASc score in Non-AFib hemodialysis patients shows supportive evidence of increased risk of stroke in those patients, which suggest the importance of close monitoring of patients with stroke risk factors by the nephrologist and the stroke team which will lead to the initiation of early prophylaxis in those patients.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adnan I Qureshi

Background and Purpose There is increasing recognition of a relatively high burden of pre-existing cardiovascular disease in Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID 19) infected patients. We determined the burden of pre-existing cardiovascular disease in persons residing in United States (US) who are at risk for severe COVID-19 infection. Methods Age (60 years or greater), presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, mellitus, hypertension, and/or malignancy were used to identify persons at risk for admission to intensive care unit, or invasive ventilation, or death with COVID-19 infection. Persons were classified as low risk (no risk factors), moderate risk (1 risk factor), and high risk (two or more risk factors present) using nationally representative sample of US adults from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2017 and 2018 survey. Results Among a total of 5856 participants, 2386 (40.7%) were considered low risk, 1325 (22.6%) moderate risk, and 2145 persons (36.6%) as high risk for severe COVID-19 infection. The proportion of patients who had pre-existing stroke increased from 0.6% to 10.5% in low risk patients to high risk patients (odds ratio [OR]19.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]11.6-34.3). The proportion of who had pre-existing myocardial infection (MI) increased from 0.4% to 10.4% in low risk patients to high risk patients (OR 30.6, 95% CI 15.7-59.8). Conclusions A large proportion of persons in US who are at risk for developing severe COVID 19 infection are expected to have pre-existing cardiovascular disease. Further studies need to identify whether targeted strategies towards cardiovascular diseases can reduce the mortality in COVID-19 infected patients.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 4972-4972
Author(s):  
Gaetano Giuffrida ◽  
Concetta Conticello ◽  
Valeria Calafiore ◽  
Enrica Antonia Martino ◽  
Silvia Giamporcaro ◽  
...  

INTRODUCTION: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is very common in patients with malignancies. Compared to the general population, patients with multiple myeloma (MM) have a 9-fold increased risk of developing VTE. In patients treated with thalidomide or lenalidomide, current guidelines recommend systematic VTE prophylaxis with ASA in low risk patients while vitamin K antagonists (VKA) or low weight molecular heparin (LWMH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH) in high-risk patients, based on the type of anti-MM treatment that patients receive and patient-related individual risk factors (e. g. history of VTE). However, little is known on VTE prophylaxis in patients treated with next generation anti-myeloma drugs, such as pomalidomide, carfilzomib and monoclonal antibodies daratumumab and elotuzumab. Here, we describe the incidence of VTE in MM patients treated with third generation novel agents in real life. In addition, we stratify patients on drugs category-based regimens to evaluate strategy of VTE prophylaxis between different groups of patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort of 137 patients affected by relapsed and/ or refractory multiple myeloma treated with novel agents was analyzed. Patients were followed at the Division of Hematology of Catania from April 2013 to June2019. Our series includes 75 patients exposed to Pomalidomide and Dexametasone (PomaD), 46 patients receiving Carfilzomib, Lenalidomide and desamethasone regimen (KRd), 14 patients exposed to Daratumumab(Dara), 27 patients to Daratumumab, Bortezomib and desamethasone (DaraVD), 4 patients to Daratumumab lenalidomide and desamethasone (DaraRd), and12 patients exposed to Elotuzumab and Lenalidomide (EloRd). Several patients were exposed to multiple lines of treatment with novel agents: the total number of analyzed treatments are 178. Patients were stratified to high or low risk for VTE: risk factors taken into account were obesity, history of VTE, central venous catheter, inhered thrombophilia, surgical procedures and comorbidities such as infections, immobilization, cardiac disease, chronic renal disease. Low risk patients had no or one risk factor; in case of two or more risk factors, the patients were classified as high risk. Low-dose aspirin (ASA 100 mg per os once daily) or equivalent was prescribed in low risk patients, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or equivalent was given to high risk patients. Only Dara treatment did not include standard prophylaxis in patients without risk factors. RESULTS: Real life observation revealed a low incidence of VTE (6 VTE-4,3%) in patients exposed to novel agents together with a standard prophylaxis in case of risk of thromboembolic complications. Forty patients were at high risk of VTE, while 97 patients were classified as low risk; VTE/PE occurred in 2 high risk patients who refused to make correct LMWH prophylaxis due to the discomfort of the subcutaneous administration, developing distal DVT respectively after cycle 1 and 2 of KRd. Two low risk patients treated with PomaD developed DVT of lower extremities during cycle 2 and 4; 2 low risk patients had pulmonary embolism during PomaD cycle 8. CONCLUSIONS: Low incidence of VTE in patients with RRMM receiving PomaD, KRd, EloRd, DaraVD, DaraRd, Dara or EloRd treatment is probably due to a correct risk assessment and subsequent prophylaxis in case of therapies including immunomodulators or in case of patients with high risk for thromboembolic complications. These data support the use of VTE risk stratification-based prophylactic strategies in myeloma patients treated with new drugs. Disclosures Conticello: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Di Raimondo:Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.


Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 18-19
Author(s):  
Ferdows Atiq ◽  
Esmee Wuijster ◽  
Moniek P.M. de Maat ◽  
Marieke J.H.A. Kruip ◽  
Marjon H. Cnossen ◽  
...  

Introduction Although large studies have recently provided valuable insights on the diagnosis, bleeding phenotype, and treatment outcomes of VWD patients, these aspects remain poorly understood in individuals with low VWF. Firstly, there is no clear evidence which cut-off value should be used to diagnose low VWF. Although 0.50 IU/mL is the most recommended cut-off value, some centers use the lower limit of normal (0.60 IU/mL). Secondly, the incidence of post-surgical bleeding, postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) and traumatic- or spontaneous bleeding after diagnosis of low VWF are still unknown. Lastly, it is hard to predict which individuals with low VWF have an increased bleeding risk. Therefore, we investigated the bleeding phenotype of individuals with historically lowest VWF levels of 0.31-0.50 IU/mL and 0.51-0.60 IU/mL, and the incidence of post-surgical bleeding, PPH and traumatic- and spontaneous bleeding after their initial diagnosis of "low VWF". Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study from January 2007 to November 2019 at the Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam. All patients evaluated for the presence of a bleeding disorder with VWF antigen (VWF:Ag) and/or VWF activity (VWF:Act) and/or VWF collagen binding (VWF:CB) levels between 0.31-0.60 IU/mL, were included. Patients with VWF:Ag and/or VWF:Act and/or VWF:CB ≤0.30 IU/mL, acquired VWD and those with a concomitant bleeding disorder were excluded. For each individual we collected data from electronic patient files on baseline characteristics, reason for referral, family history of bleeding disorders, ISTH-BAT and laboratory measurements at diagnosis. Retrospective follow-up started from initial date of low VWF diagnosis through November 2019, during which we collected data on surgical procedures, pregnancies, and incidence of spontaneous- and traumatic bleeding. Results We included 439 patients; 269 patients with historically lowest VWF levels 0.31-0.50 IU/mL and 170 patients 0.51-0.60 IU/mL. Mean age at diagnosis was 28.8 ±17.7 years. Most patients were female (74.3%) and had blood group O (76.4%, Table 1). The bleeding score (BS) was similar in patients with historically lowest VWF levels of 0.31-0.50 IU/mL (3.7 ±3.0) and 0.51-0.60 IU/mL (4.0 ±2.9, p=0.209, Table 1). During the mean follow-up period of 6.3 ±3.7 years, 259 surgical procedures were performed in 146 patients, 81 deliveries in 56 women, and 109 spontaneous- or traumatic bleedings in 71 patients. The incidence of post-surgical bleeding was 7 (2.7%) during follow-up, whereas 8 deliveries (10%) were complicated by PPH. Overall, 65 out of 439 patients (14.8%) had a bleeding episode requiring treatment during follow-up, resulting in an incidence of bleeding requiring treatment of 0.5 ±1.9 per patient per decade. No difference was found in the incidence of bleeding requiring treatment between patients with historically lowest VWF levels of 0.31-0.50 IU/mL and 0.51-0.60 IU/mL (Figure 2A, p=0.154). We found that referral for a personal bleeding diathesis, a younger age at diagnosis and an abnormal BS at diagnosis were strong and independent risk factors for bleeding requiring treatment during follow-up, respectively HR=2.32 (95%CI: 1.16-4.63), HR=1.18 (95%CI: 1.01-1.38) and HR=1.77 (95%CI: 1.04-3.01). These risk factors were combined to develop a risk score to identify low VWF patients with an increased risk for bleeding requiring treatment (Figure 2B). The risk score performed excellent to differentiate in bleeding requiring treatment between low risk, intermediate risk and high risk patients (p<0.001, Figure 2C). The number of patients with bleeding requiring treatment was 8/126 (6.3%) in patients with low risk, 18/143 (12.6%) in intermediate risk and 39/170 (22.9%) in high risk patients (p<0.001). Likewise, the incidence of bleeding requiring treatment per patient per decade was 0.22 ±1.08 in low risk, 0.28 ±1.25 in intermediate risk and 0.87 ±2.61 in high risk patients (p=0.004, Figure 2D). Conclusion To conclude, there is no difference in the bleeding phenotype of individuals with historically lowest VWF levels of 0.31-0.50 IU/mL and 0.51-0.60 IU/mL. Therefore, the cut-off value to diagnose low VWF should be set at 0.60 IU/mL. Furthermore, the risk score developed in the current study may assist to identify low VWF patients with low, intermediate and high risk for future bleeding. Disclosures Atiq: SOBI: Other: travel grant; CSL Behring: Research Funding. Kruip:Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; SOBI: Research Funding; Bayer: Speakers Bureau. Cnossen:Takeda: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; Baxter: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Sobi: Research Funding; CSL behring: Research Funding; Nordic Pharma: Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Leebeek:CSL Behring: Research Funding; Shire/Takeda: Research Funding; Uniqure: Consultancy; Shire/Takeda: Consultancy; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy; SOBI: Other: Travel grant; Roche: Other: DSMB member for a study.


Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 1323-1323
Author(s):  
Anna Hecht ◽  
Florian Nolte ◽  
Daniel Nowak ◽  
Verena Nowak ◽  
Benjamin Hanfstein ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction With current therapy regimens over 75% of patients with de novo acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) can be cured. Approaches to further improve patient outcome by stratifying patients at the time of initial diagnosis according to their individual risk and to adjust therapy accordingly have been based on clinical features only. Molecular markers have not been established for risk stratification as yet. Recently, we have shown that high expression levels of the genes brain and acute leukemia, cytoplasmic (BAALC) and ets related gene (ERG) are associated with inferior outcome in APL patients. In addition, data indicate that aberrant expression of the gene Wilms’ tumor 1 (WT1) is a negative prognostic factor with regard to overall survival (OS) after complete remission (CR) and relapse free survival (RFS) in APL. In this study we evaluated the prognostic relevance of a combined score integrating the expression levels of the above mentioned genes to further improve risk stratification in APL patients. Methods Expression levels of BAALC, ERG and WT1 of 62 patients with newly diagnosed APL were retrospectively analyzed in bone marrow mononuclear cells using multiplex reverse transcriptase quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR). Median age of patients was 47 years (range: 19 to 82y). All patients gave informed consent. Patients were diagnosed and treated in the German AML Cooperative Group (AMLCG) study with a treatment of simultaneous ATRA and double induction chemotherapy including high-dose ara-C, consolidation and maintenance chemotherapy. The following gene expression levels were identified as negative risk factors in preceding studies: BAALC expression ≥25th percentile (BAALChigh), ERG expression >75th percentile (ERGhigh) and WT1 expression ≤25th percentile or ≥75th percentile (WT1low/high). A risk score was developed as follows: for the presence of one of the mentioned risk factors one scoring point was assigned to a respective patient, i.e. a maximum of 3 points (one point for BAALChigh, ERGhigh and WT1low/high, respectively) and a minimum of 0 points (i.e. presenting with none of the aforementioned risk factors) could be allocated to one patient. Accordingly, patients were divided into four risk groups: 7 patients scored 0 points (= low risk), 27 patients scored 1 point (= intermediate 1 risk), 19 patients scored 2 points (= intermediate 2 risk) and 9 patients scored 3 points (= high risk). Subsequently, OS, RFS and relapse free interval (RFI) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and a log-rank test was used to compare differences between the four risk groups (p<0.05). Results The integrative risk score divided patients into four groups with significantly different outcome. The low risk group showed a RFS of 100% at 10 years of follow-up compared to the intermediate 1 risk group with 81%, the intermediate 2 risk group with 58% and the high risk group with a RFS of 42% only (median survival: 4.6y) (p=0.02). In accordance, the RFI differed significantly between the four groups: low risk 100%, intermediate 1 risk 100%, intermediate 2 risk 89% and high risk 71% (p=0.049). There was no statistically significant difference between the 4 groups with regard to OS in the entire patient cohort. However, there was a clear trend towards a difference in OS in patients who achieved a CR after induction therapy: low risk 100%, intermediate 1 risk 81%, intermediate 2 risk 68% and high risk 53% survival at 10 years of follow-up (p=0.09). Conclusion Integration of expression levels of the genes BAALC, ERG and WT1 into a scoring system identifies 4 risk groups with significantly different outcome with regard to RFS and RFI. It might be a promising approach to guide therapeutic decisions in patients with APL. However, multivariate analyses and validation of these data in an independent patient cohort is warranted. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 325-325
Author(s):  
Frits Rosendaal ◽  
Roberta Palla ◽  
Isabella Garagiola ◽  
Piermannuccio Mannucci ◽  
Flora Peyvandi

Abstract Background The development of neutralizing antibodies against factor VIII is a common and serious complication of replacement therapy, occurring mainly in the early stages of treatment. Meta-analyses of observational studies have suggested a higher risk of inhibitor development with concentrates produced by recombinant technologies (rFVIII) than with those derived from human plasma (pdFVIII) containing von Willebrand factor, which was recently confirmed in a randomized trial. In this trial cumulative incidences of inhibitor development were 44.5% for rFVIII and 26.8% for pdFVIII, for a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.87 (95% confidence interval (CI95) 1.17-2.96). Given the particularly high risk with rFVIII , it has been suggested to restrict the use of rFVIII to low risk patients, and treat high-risk patients with pdFVIII. We investigated such a strategy in a post-hoc analysis of the SIPPET study, in which we used the FVIII genotype (F8 gene mutation) to classify patients by prior risk. Methods SIPPET is an open label international randomized trial on which 251 previously untreated (n=142) or minimally treated (less than five exposure to blood components other than concentrate or cryoprecipitate, n=109) in 42 centers to be treated exclusively with a concentrate from the class of rFVIII or pdFVIII. Patients were tested for inhibitors before entry and at regular intervals during 50 exposure days, 3 years or the development of an inhibitor of at least 0.4 Bethesda units (BU). The trial ran from 2010 to 2014 and was terminated when the prespecified number of patients was included. Patients who had not reached 50ED by that time were censored. Patients were classified at high risk when they carried a null mutation (inversion, large deletion, frameshift, nonsense mutation) in the F8 gene and as low risk when they carried another causative variant (missense, splice site, polymorphisms, no mutation). We estimated cumulative incidences, hazard ratios and numbers needed to harm (NNH) for rFVIII vs pdFVIII for high- and low risk patients. Results Among 251 patients, 76 developed an inhibitor (all > 0.7 BU) of which 50 were high- titer (> 5 BU). Among 197 patients classified as high risk, 65 developed an inhibitor (cumulative incidence 38.2%, CI95 30.8-45.6), whereas among the 38 patients classified as low risk 7 developed an inhibitor (cumulative incidence 23.9%, CI95 8.2-39.6). High and low risk patients were equally distributed over the two arms of the trial, i.e., 96 out of 126 treated with rFVIII were high risk, and 101 out of 125 treated with pdFVIII. Among high risk patients, cumulative incidence was 30.7% when treated with pdFVIII , and 46.5% when treated with rFVIII (risk difference 15.8%). Among low risk patients, no inhibitors developed with pdFVIII, whereas the cumulative incidence was 43.2% with rFVIII (risk difference 43.2%). This implies that the Number Needed to Harm was 5.6 overall, 6.3 for high-risk patients, and 2.3 in low risk patients. Conclusion Risk stratification by the type of F8 mutation does not identify previously untreated patients with hemophilia A who have a low inhibitor risk when exposed to rFVIII. Other means need to be found to reduce the occurrence of inhibitors with rFVIII. Disclosures Palla: Pfizer: Other: travel support . Mannucci:NovoNordisk: Speakers Bureau; Kedrion: Speakers Bureau; Grifols: Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Speakers Bureau. Peyvandi:Bayer: Speakers Bureau; SOBI: Speakers Bureau; Kedrion Biopharma: Consultancy, Other: research funding paid to Luigi Villa Foundation, Research Funding; Alexion: Other: research funding paid to Luigi Villa Foundation, Research Funding; Octapharma: Consultancy; Ablynx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: research funding paid to Luigi Villa Foundation, Research Funding; Biotest: Other: research funding paid to Luigi Villa Foundation, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CSL Behring: Speakers Bureau; LFB: Consultancy; Grifols: Speakers Bureau; Novo Nordisk: Other: research funding paid to Luigi Villa Foundation, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3612-3612
Author(s):  
Scott Kopetz ◽  
Zhi-Qin Jiang ◽  
Michael J. Overman ◽  
Robert Rosenberg ◽  
Ramon Salazar ◽  
...  

3612 Background: Although benefit of chemotherapy in stage II and III colorectal cancer patients is significant, many patients might not need adjuvant chemotherapy because they have a good prognosis even without additional treatment. ColoPrint is a gene expression classifier that distinguish patients with low or high risk of disease relapse. It was developed using whole genome expression data and validated in independent validation studies (JCO 2011, Ann Surg 2013). Methods: In this study, ColoPrint was validated in stage II (n=96) and III patients (n=95) treated at the MD Anderson Cancer Center. Frozen tissue specimen, clinical parameters and follow-up data (median follow-up 64 months) were available. Stage II patients from this study were pooled with patients from previous studies (n=416) and ColoPrint performance was compared to clinical risk factors described in the NCCN Guidelines 2013. Results: In the MDACC patient cohort, ColoPrint classified 56% of stage II and III patients as being at Low Risk. The 3-year Relapse-Free-Survival (RFS) was 90.5% for Low Risk and 78.1% for High Risk patients with a HR of 2.42 (p=0.025). In uni-and multivariate analysis, ColoPrint and stage were the only significant factors to predict outcome. Low Risk ColoPrint patients had a good outcome independent of stage or chemotherapy treatment (91% 3-year RFS for treated patients, 90% for untreated patients) while ColoPrint High Risk patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy had 3-year RFS of 84%, compared to 70% 3-year RFS in untreated patients (p=0.037). In the pooled stage II dataset, ColoPrint identified 63% of patients as Low Risk with a 3-year RFS of 93% while High Risk patients had a 3-year RFS of 82.3% with a HR of 2.7 (p=0.001). In the univariate analysis, no clinical factor reached statistical significance. Using clinical high risk factors as described in the NCCN guidelines as classification, 56% of patients were classified as low risk with a 3-year RFS of 90.3% while high risk patients had a 3-year RFS of 87.7% with a HR of 0.6 (p=0.63). Conclusions: ColoPrint significantly improves prognostic accuracy, thereby facilitating the identification of patients at higher risk who might be considered for additional treatment.


Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 4055-4055
Author(s):  
Tiziano Barbui ◽  
Alessandro M. Vannucchi ◽  
Veronika Buxhofer-Ausch ◽  
Valerio De Stefano ◽  
Silvia Betti ◽  
...  

Abstract Background In the recent International Prognostic Score for Thrombosis in essential thrombocythemia (IPSET-thrombosis), age and history of thrombosis were confirmed as independent risk factors for future thrombosis and the study also identified independent prothrombotic role for cardiovascular (CV) risk factors and JAK2 V617F mutation (Barbui et al. Blood 2012). Methods In the current study, we re-analyzed the original IPSET-thrombosis data in 1019 patients with WHO-defined ET in whom JAK2 mutational status was available, in order to quantify the individual contributions of JAK2 mutations and CV risk factors in conventionally-assigned low and high risk ET, as well as in age- versus thrombosis-defined high risk status. Results After a median follow-up of 6.8 and 5.0 years in conventionally-assigned low- and high-risk patients, respectively, the overall annual rate of total thrombosis (108 events) in conventionally-assigned low- and high-risk patients was 1.11%-pt/y (CI 0.81-1.52) and 2.46%-pt/y (CI 1.94-3.11) respectively (p=0.001), and the difference was mainly due to a higher frequency of arterial thrombosis in high-risk patients (p<0.001).The influence of JAK2 mutational status and CV-risk factors on the rate of thrombosis in conventionally assigned low- and high-risk groups is presented in the table. Table 1. Additional risk factors N (%) Event Rate % pts/yr (95% CI) P-value P-value P-value trend Low risk 506 (50) 39 1.11 (0.81-1.52) None 200 (40) 7 0.44 (0.21-0.92) ref Cardiovascular risk factor 36 (7) 3 1.05 (0.34-3.25) 0.220 0.227 JAK2V617F 213 (43) 21 1.59 (1.04-2.44) 0.001 0.217 Both 52 (10) 8 2.57 (1.29-5.15) <0.001 ref <0.001 High risk 513 (50) 69 2.46 (1.94-3.11) None 111 (22) 10 1.44 (0.78-2.68) ref Cardiovascular risk factor 44 (9) 4 1.64 (0.62-4.37) 0.909 0.067 JAK2V617F 222 (43) 30 2.36 (1.65-3.38) 0.168 0.082 Both 136 (27) 25 4.17 (2.82-6.17) 0.011 ref 0.005 The number of major arterial and venous thrombosis was reported as rates per 100 patient-years and the difference among groups was assessed by Mantel Cox log-rank test i) Conventionally-assigned low-risk group. Amongst 506 patients, 200 (40%) displayed neither JAK2 mutation nor CV risk factors and their annual rate of thrombosis was 0.44%, as opposed to 1.05% in the presence of CV risk factors (P=NS), 1.59% in the presence of JAK2 mutation (p=0.001) and 2.57% in the presence of both CV risk factors and JAK2 mutation (P<0.001). There was no significant difference when low-risk patients with both JAK2 mutation and CV risk factors were compared with either those with CV risk factors only (p=0.227) or those with JAK2 mutation only (p=0.217). ii) Conventionally assigned high-risk group: The absence or presence of one or both of the aforementioned additional risk factors for thrombosis were documented in 111 (22%), 44 (9%), 222 (43%) and 136 (27%) patients, respectively, with corresponding annual rates of thrombosis at 1.44%, 1.64%, 2.36% and 4.17% (Table). High-risk patients with both risk factors had a significantly higher risk of thrombosis compared to their counterparts with the absence of JAK2 mutations and CV risk factors (p=0.011). Additional analysis revealed limited enhancement of thrombosis risk by either JAK2 mutations or CV risk factors or both in patients whose high-risk status was defined by the presence of thrombosis history, regardless of age (P=NS). In contrast, the presence of JAK2 mutations, with or without CV risk factors, might have affected thrombosis risk in patients where high-risk status was defined by age alone (p=0.05). Conclusions The current study suggests the possibility of considering four risk categories in ET: "very low risk" group (age ≤60 years and without thrombosis history, JAK2 mutations or CV risk factors); "low risk" (age ≤60 years and without thrombosis history but with JAK2 mutations or CV risk factors); "intermediate risk" (age>60 years but without thrombosis history or JAK2 mutations); and "high risk" (thrombosis history at any age or JAK2 -mutated patients who are older than 60 years of age). Treatment recommendations for each one of the above-mentioned new risk categories should be examined in the context of prospective controlled studies. Disclosures Barbui: Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Vannucchi:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Baxalta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Buxhofer-Ausch:AOP Orphan: Research Funding. De Stefano:Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen Cilag: Research Funding; Shire: Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Speakers Bureau; Bruno Farmaceutici: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Gisslinger:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AOP ORPHAN: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Geron: Consultancy; Sanofi Aventis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.


2017 ◽  
Vol 67 (665) ◽  
pp. e881-e887 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel Finnikin ◽  
Ronan Ryan ◽  
Tom Marshall

BackgroundStatin prescribing should be based on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, but evidence suggests overtreatment of low-risk groups and undertreatment of high-risk groups.AimTo investigate the relationship between CVD risk scoring in primary care and initiation of statins for the primary prevention of CVD, and the effect of changes to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance in 2014.Design and settingHistorical cohort study using UK electronic primary care records.MethodA cohort was created of statin-naïve patients without CVD between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2015. CVD risk scores (calculated using QRISK2 available from 2012) and statin initiations were identified. Rates of CVD risk score recording were calculated and relationships between CVD risk category (low-, intermediate-, and high-risk: <10%, 10–19.9%, and ≥20% 10-year CVD risk) and statin initiation were analysed.ResultsA total of 1.4 million patients were identified from 248 practices. Of these, 151 788 had a recorded CVD risk score since 2012 (10.67%) and 217 860 were initiated on a statin (15.31%). Among patients initiated on a statin after 2012, 27.1% had a documented QRISK2 score: 2.7% of low-risk, 13.8% of intermediate-risk, and 35.0% of high-risk patients were initiated on statins. Statin initiation rates halved from a peak in 2006. After the 2014 NICE guidelines, statin initiation rates declined in high-risk patients but increased in intermediate-risk patients.ConclusionMost patients initiated on statins had no QRISK2 score recorded. Most patients at high risk of CVD were not initiated on statins. One in six statin initiations were to low-risk patients indicating significant overtreatment. Initiations of statins in intermediate-risk patients rose after NICE guidelines were updated in 2014.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document