Faculty Opinions recommendation of Validation of a clinical prognostic model to identify low-risk patients with pulmonary embolism.

Author(s):  
Victor Tapson
CHEST Journal ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 143 (1) ◽  
pp. 138-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul L. den Exter ◽  
Vicente Gómez ◽  
David Jiménez ◽  
Javier Trujillo-Santos ◽  
Alfonso Muriel ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 261 (6) ◽  
pp. 597-604 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Aujesky ◽  
A. Perrier ◽  
P.-M. Roy ◽  
R. A. Stone ◽  
J. Cornuz ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. e040151
Author(s):  
Christine Baumgartner ◽  
Frederikus A Klok ◽  
Marc Carrier ◽  
Andreas Limacher ◽  
Jeanne Moor ◽  
...  

IntroductionThe clinical significance of subsegmental pulmonary embolism (SSPE) is currently unclear. Although growing evidence from observational studies suggests that withholding anticoagulant treatment may be a safe option in selected patients with isolated SSPE, most patients with this condition receive anticoagulant treatment, which is associated with a 90-day risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) of 0.8% and major bleeding of up to 5%. Given the ongoing controversy concerning the risk-benefit ratio of anticoagulation for isolated SSPE and the lack of evidence from randomised-controlled studies, the aim of this clinical trial is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of clinical surveillance without anticoagulation in low-risk patients with isolated SSPE.Methods and analysisSAFE-SSPE (Surveillance vs. Anticoagulation For low-risk patiEnts with isolated SubSegmental Pulmonary Embolism, a multicentre randomised placebo-controlled non-inferiority trial) is an international, multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group non-inferiority trial conducted in Switzerland, the Netherlands and Canada. Low-risk patients with isolated SSPE are randomised to receive clinical surveillance with either placebo (no anticoagulation) or anticoagulant treatment with rivaroxaban. All patients undergo bilateral whole-leg compression ultrasonography to exclude concomitant deep vein thrombosis before enrolment. Patients are followed for 90 days. The primary outcome is symptomatic recurrent VTE (efficacy). The secondary outcomes include clinically significant bleeding and all-cause mortality (safety). The ancillary outcomes are health-related quality of life, functional status and medical resource utilisation.Ethics and disseminationThe local ethics committees in Switzerland have approved this protocol. Submission to the Ethical Committees in the Netherlands and Canada is underway. The results of this trial will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberNCT04263038.


Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 747-747
Author(s):  
Craig I Coleman ◽  
Christine G Kohn ◽  
Concetta Crivera ◽  
Jeff Schein ◽  
W Frank Peacock

Background: Current guidelines suggest that low risk pulmonary embolism (PE) patients may be managed as outpatients or with an abbreviated hospital stay. There is need for a claims-based prediction rule that payers and hospitals can use to efficiently risk stratify PE patients. The authors recently derived a rule found to have high sensitivity and moderate specificity for predicting in-hospital mortality. Objective: To validate the In-hospital Mortality for PulmonAry embolism using Claims daTa (IMPACT) prediction rule originally developed in a commercial claims database in an all-payer administrative database restricted to inpatient claims. Methods: This study utilized data from the 2012 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS). Adult PE admissions were identified by the presence of an appropriate International Classification of Diseases, ninth edition, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) code either in the primary position or secondary position when accompanied by a primary code for a PE complication. The IMPACT rule, consists of age + 11 weighted comorbidities calculated based upon the maximum of 25 ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes and 25 procedural codes reported for each discharge in the NIS (myocardial infarction, chronic lung disease, stroke, prior major bleeding, atrial fibrillation, cognitive impairment, heart failure, renal failure, liver disease, coagulopathy, cancer), and was used to estimate patients' risk of in-hospital mortality. Low risk was defined as in-hospital mortality ≤1.5%. We present the validity of the rule by calculating prognostic test characteristics and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In order to estimate the potential cost savings from an early discharge, we calculated the difference in total hospital costs between low-risk patients having and not having an abbreviated hospital stay (defined as ≤1, ≤2 or ≤3 days). Results: A total of 34,108 admissions for PE were included (46.7% male, mean ± standard deviation age of 61.9±17.2); and we observed a 3.4% in-hospital PE case-fatality rate. The IMPACT prediction rule classified 11,025 (32.3%) patient admissions as low-risk; and had a sensitivity of 92.4% (95%CI=90.7-93.8), specificity of 33.2% (95%CI=32.7-33.7), negative and positive predictive values of 99.2% (95%CI=99.0-99.4) and 4.6% (95%CI=4.4-4.9) and a C-statistic of 0.74 (95%CI=0.73-0.76) for in-hospital mortality. Low-risk patients had significantly lower in-hospital mortality (0.8% vs. 4.6%, odds reduction of 83%; 95%CI=79-87), shorter LOSs (-1.2 days, p<0.001) and lower total treatment costs (-$3,074, p<0.001) than patients classified as higher-risk. Of low-risk patients, 13.1%, 31.1% and 47.7% were discharged within 1, 2 and 3 days of admission. Low-risk patients discharged within 1 day accrued $5,465 (95%CI=$5,018-$5,911) less in treatment costs than those staying longer. Discharge within 2 or 3 days in low-risk patients was also associated with a reduced cost of hospital treatment [$5,820 (95%CI=$5,506-$6,133) and $6,314 (95%CI=$6,031-$6,597), respectively] when compared to those staying longer. Conclusion: The prior claims-based in-hospital mortality prediction rule was valid when used in this all-payer, inpatient only administrative claims database. The rule classified patients' mortality risk with high sensitivity and had a high negative predictive value; and consequently, may be valuable to those wishing to benchmark rates of PE treated at home or following an abbreviated hospital admission. Disclosures Coleman: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Consultancy, Research Funding. Crivera:Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schein:Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Employment. Peacock:Singulex: Consultancy; Prevencio: Consultancy; The Medicines Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Portola: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cardiorentis: Research Funding; Banyan: Research Funding; Alere: Research Funding; Abbott: Research Funding; Comprehensive Research Associates, LLC: Equity Ownership; Emergencies in Medicine, LLC: Equity Ownership.


Author(s):  
Diana Paulina Chiluiza Reyes ◽  
Esther Barbero ◽  
Andrés Quezada ◽  
Edwin Mercedes ◽  
Francisco León ◽  
...  

CHEST Journal ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 128 (4) ◽  
pp. 2183-2189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Hlavac ◽  
Julie Cook ◽  
Rob Ojala ◽  
Ian Town ◽  
Lutz Beckert

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2872-2872 ◽  
Author(s):  
Farheen Mir ◽  
Andrew Grigg ◽  
Michael Herold ◽  
Wolfgang Hiddemann ◽  
Robert Marcus ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: Progression of disease within 24 months of initial therapy (POD24) is associated with poor survival in patients with follicular lymphoma (FL). Existing prognostic models, such as FLIPI-1 and FLIPI-2, show poor sensitivity for POD24, and are derived from cohorts lacking bendamustine-treated patients. More accurate predictive models based on current standard therapies are needed to identify patients with high-risk disease. The Phase III GALLIUM trial (NCT01332968) compared the safety and efficacy of standard chemotherapy regimens plus rituximab (R) or obinutuzumab (G) in patients with previously untreated FL. Using GALLIUM data, we developed a novel risk stratification model to predict both PFS and POD24 in FL patients after first-line immunochemotherapy. Methods: Enrolled patients were aged ≥18 years with previously untreated FL (grades 1-3a), Stage III/IV disease (or Stage II with bulk), and ECOG PS ≤2, and required treatment by GELF criteria. Patients were randomized to receive either G- or R-based immunochemotherapy, followed by maintenance with the same antibody in responders. The chemotherapy arm (CHOP, CVP, or bendamustine) was selected by each study center. POD24 was defined as progressive disease or death due to disease within 24 months of randomization (noPOD24 = no progression or lymphoma-related death in that period). The most strongly prognostic variables, based on PFS hazard ratios, were estimated using penalized multivariate Cox regression methodology via an Elastic Net model. Selected variables were given equal weights, and a clinical score was formed by summating the number of risk factors for each patient. Low- and high-risk categories were determined using a cut-off that provided the best balance between true- and false-positives for PFS. PFS correlation and sensitivity to predict POD24 were assessed. The data used are from an updated GALLIUM efficacy analysis (data cut-off: April 2018; median follow-up: 57 months). Results: 1202 FL patients were enrolled. Based on data availability and biological plausibility (i.e. could reasonably be linked with high-risk disease), 25 potential clinical and treatment-related prognostic variables were entered into the Elastic Net model (Table). A model containing 11 factors was retained by the methodology and chosen as the best model (Table). Patients were categorized as 'low risk' if they scored between 0 and 3 (n=521/1000 patients with complete data) and as 'high risk' if they scored between 4 and 11 (n=479/1000 patients). At 2 years, the PFS rate was 84.5% in the whole FL population. Using our model, 2-year PFS for high-risk patients was 77% compared with 79.9% for FLIPI-1 and FLIPI-2. In low-risk patients, 2-year PFS was 92% compared with 87.9% for FLIPI-1 and 87.6% for FLIPI-2 (low-intermediate-risk patients). Our model increased the inter-group difference in 2-year PFS rate from 8% (FLIPI-1) and 7.7% (FLIPI-2) to 15%. At 3 years, the inter-group difference increased from 6.9% (FLIPI-1) and 9% (FLIPI-2) to 17% (Figure). Sensitivity for a high-risk score to predict POD24 was 73% using our model compared with 55% for FLIPI-1 and 52% for FLIPI-2 (based on 127 POD24 and 873 noPOD24 patients with complete data). Excluding patients who received CVP, which is now rarely used, resulted in an inter-group difference in PFS of 15% at 2 years and 16.8% at 3 years. A sensitivity analysis showed that inclusion of the 9 clinical factors only (i.e. removal of CVP and R treatment as variables) formed a more basic scoring system (low-risk patients, 1-3; high-risk patients, 4-9); the inter-group difference in PFS was 16.5% at 2 years and 17.6% at 3 years. However, sensitivity for POD24 decreased to 56%. Conclusion: Our clinical prognostic model was more accurate at discriminating patients likely to have poor PFS than either FLIPI-1 or FLIPI-2, and its prognostic value was sustained over time. Our model also identified the FL population at risk of POD24 with greater sensitivity. Variables such as age and bone marrow involvement were not retained by our model, and thus may not have a major impact in the current era of therapy. Factors such as sum of the products of lesion diameters were included, as this captures tumor burden more accurately than presence of bulk disease. Future studies will aim to improve the accuracy of the model by considering gene expression-based prognostic markers and DNA sequencing to form a combined clinico-genomic model. Disclosures Mir: F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Employment. Hiddemann:F. Hoffman-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Marcus:F. Hoffman-La Roche: Other: Travel support and lecture fees; Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel support and lecture fees ; Gilead: Consultancy. Seymour:Genentech Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bolen:Roche: Other: Ownership interests PLC*. Knapp:Roche: Employment. Launonen:Launonen: Other: Ownership interests none PLC; Travel, accommodation, expenses; Novartis: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Other: Ownership interests none PLC; Travel. accommodation, expenses; Roche: Employment, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses. Mattiello:Roche: Employment. Nielsen:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment, Other: Ownership interests PLC. Oestergaard:Roche: Employment, Other: Ownership interests PLC. Wenger:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Ownership interests PLC. Casulo:Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document