METHODS: Using measures of discrimination and calibration, we tested the performance of the NL-IHRS (n=100 475) and FC-IHRS (n=107 863) for predicting incident CVD in a community-based, prospective study across seven geographic regions: South Asia, China, Southeast Asia, Middle East, Europe/North America, South America and Africa. CVD was defined as the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure or coronary revascularisation.
RESULTS: Mean age of the study population was 50.53 (SD 9.79) years and mean follow-up was 4.89 (SD 2.24) years. The NL-IHRS had moderate to good discrimination for incident CVD across geographic regions (concordance statistic (C-statistic) ranging from 0.64 to 0.74), although recalibration was necessary in all regions, which improved its performance in the overall cohort (increase in C-statistic from 0.69 to 0.72, p<0.001). Regional recalibration was also necessary for the FC-IHRS, which also improved its overall discrimination (increase in C-statistic from 0.71 to 0.74, p<0.001). In 85 078 participants with complete data for both scores, discrimination was only modestly better with the FC-IHRS compared with the NL-IHRS (0.74 vs 0.73, p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: External validations of the NL-IHRS and FC-IHRS suggest that regionally recalibrated versions of both can be useful for estimating CVD risk across a diverse range of community-based populations. CVD prediction using a non-laboratory score can provide similar accuracy to laboratory-based methods.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed retrospective data of chest pain patients presenting to ED HUSM from 1st June 2020 till 31st January 2021 based on the patient's history, ECG findings, risk factors, age and troponin level. The patients were stratified as low risk (MHS and HEAR score of 0-3), intermediate risk (MHS and HEAR score of 4-6), and high risk (MHS of 7-10 and HEAR score of 7-8). The association of the MHS and HEAR score with MACE at 6 weeks' time was evaluated using simple logistic regression.
RESULTS: This study included 147 patients in the MHS analysis and 71 patients in HEAR score analysis. The incident rate of MACE in low, intermediate and high risk was 0%,16.3%, and 34.7%, in the MHS group, and 0%, 3.22%, and 6.66% in HEAR score group. The mean difference between MACE and non-MACE in MHS and HEAR score groups was -2.29 (CI: -3.13,1.44, p<0.001) and -2.51(CI: -5.23, 0.21, p=0.070), respectively. There was no significant association between the incidence rate of MACE with modified HEART score (MHS) and HEAR score groups (p>0.95).
CONCLUSION: HEAR score is not feasible to be used as a risk stratification tool for chest pain patients presenting to ED HUSM in comparison to MHS. Further studies are required to validate the results.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 7476 patients with routine health check-up data who underwent prostate biopsies from January 2008 to December 2021 in eight referral centres in Asia were screened. After data pre-processing and cleaning, 5037 patients and 117 features were analyzed. Seven AI-based algorithms were tested for feature selection and seven AI-based algorithms were tested for classification, with the best combination applied for model construction. The APAC score was established in the CH cohort and validated in a multi-centre cohort and in each validation cohort to evaluate its generalizability in different Asian regions. The performance of the models was evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC), calibration plot, and decision curve analyses.
RESULTS: Eighteen features were involved in the APCA score predicting HGPCa, with some of these markers not previously used in prostate cancer diagnosis. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.76 (95% CI:0.74-0.78) in the multi-centre validation cohort and the increment of AUC (APCA vs. PSA) was 0.16 (95% CI:0.13-0.20). The calibration plots yielded a high degree of coherence and the decision curve analysis yielded a higher net clinical benefit. Applying the APCA score could reduce unnecessary biopsies by 20.2% and 38.4%, at the risk of missing 5.0% and 10.0% of HGPCa cases in the multi-centre validation cohort, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The APCA score based on routine health check-ups could reduce unnecessary prostate biopsies without additional examinations in Asian populations. Further prospective population-based studies are warranted to confirm these results.
METHODS: GHS classification for reproductive toxicity of 157 UOG-related chemicals identified as potential reproductive or developmental toxicants in a previous publication was assessed using eleven governmental regulatory agency databases. If there was discordance in classifications across agencies, the most stringent classification was assigned. Chemicals in the category of known or presumed human reproductive toxicants were further evaluated for carcinogenicity and germ cell mutagenicity based on government classifications. A scoring system was utilized to assign numerical values for reproductive health, cancer and germ cell mutation hazard endpoints. Using a Cytoscape analysis, both qualitative and quantitative results were presented visually to readily identify high priority UOG chemicals with evidence of multiple adverse effects.
RESULTS: We observed substantial inconsistencies in classification among the 11 databases. By adopting the most stringent classification within and across countries, 43 chemicals were classified as known or presumed human reproductive toxicants (GHS Category 1), while 31 chemicals were classified as suspected human reproductive toxicants (GHS Category 2). The 43 reproductive toxicants were further subjected to analysis for carcinogenic and mutagenic properties. Calculated hazard scores and Cytoscape visualization yielded several high priority chemicals including potassium dichromate, cadmium, benzene and ethylene oxide.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reveal diverging GHS classification outcomes for UOG chemicals across regulatory agencies. Adoption of the most stringent classification with application of hazard scores provides a useful approach to prioritize reproductive toxicants in UOG and other industries for exposure assessments and selection of safer alternatives.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Hip fracture Accelerated surgical TreaTment And Care tracK (HIP ATTACK) is a multicentre, international, parallel-group randomised controlled trial (RCT). Patients who suffer a hip fracture are randomly allocated to either accelerated medical assessment and surgical repair with a goal of surgery within 6 hours of diagnosis or standard care where a repair typically occurs 24 to 48 hours after diagnosis. The primary outcome of this substudy is the development of AKI within 7 days of randomisation. We anticipate at least 1998 patients will participate in this substudy.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We obtained ethics approval for additional serum creatinine recordings in consecutive patients enrolled at 70 participating centres. All patients provide consent before randomisation. We anticipate reporting substudy results by 2021.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02027896; Pre-results.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The measurement challenge has been established as an international resource to offer a common set of anonymised mammogram images for measurement and analysis. To date, full field digital mammogram images and core data from 1650 cases and 1929 controls from five countries have been collated. The measurement challenge is an ongoing collaboration and we are continuing to expand the resource to include additional image sets across different populations (from contributors) and to compare additional measurement methods (by challengers). The intended use of the measurement challenge resource is for refinement and validation of new and existing mammographic measurement methods. The measurement challenge resource provides a standardised dataset of mammographic images and core data that enables investigators to directly compare methods of measuring mammographic density or other mammographic features in case/control sets of both raw and processed images, for the purposes of the comparing their predictions of breast cancer risk.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Challengers and contributors are required to enter a Research Collaboration Agreement with the University of Melbourne prior to participation in the measurement challenge. The Challenge database of collated data and images are stored in a secure data repository at the University of Melbourne. Ethics approval for the measurement challenge is held at University of Melbourne (HREC ID 0931343.3).
METHODS: A prospective pre- and post-intervention study was conducted among medical inpatients in a Malaysian secondary care hospital. DVT and bleeding risks were stratified using validated Padua Risk Assessment Model (RAM) and International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) Bleeding Risk Assessment Model. Pharmacist-driven DRAT was developed and implemented post-interventional phase. DVT prophylaxis use was determined and its appropriateness was compared between pre and post study using multivariate logistic regression with IBM SPSS software version 21.0.
RESULTS: Overall, 286 patients (n=142 pre-intervention versus n=144 post-intervention) were conveniently recruited. The prevalence of DVT prophylaxis use was 10.8%. Appropriate thromboprophylaxis prescribing increased from 64.8% to 68.1% post-DRAT implementation. Of note, among high DVT risk patients, DRAT intervention was observed to be a significant predictor of appropriate thromboprophylaxis use (14.3% versus 31.3%; adjusted odds ratio=2.80; 95% CI 1.01 to 7.80; p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: The appropriateness of DVT prophylaxis use was suboptimal but doubled after implementation of DRAT intervention. Thus, an integrated risk stratification checklist is an effective approach for the improvement of rational DVT prophylaxis use.