Bossuyt, Patrick M.

Abstract Background The 2023 Duke–International Society of Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID) criteria for infective endocarditis (IE) were introduced to improve classification of IE for research and clinical purposes. External validation studies are required. Methods We studied consecutive patients with suspected IE referred to the IE team of Amsterdam University Medical Center (from October 2016 to March 2021). An international expert panel independently reviewed case summaries and assigned a final diagnosis of “IE” or “not IE,” which served as the reference standard, to which the “definite” Duke-ISCVID classifications were compared. We also evaluated accuracy when excluding cardiac surgical and pathologic data (“clinical” criteria). Finally, we compared the 2023 Duke-ISCVID with the 2000 modified Duke criteria and the 2015 and 2023 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) criteria. Results A total of 595 consecutive patients with suspected IE were included: 399 (67%) were adjudicated as having IE; 111 (19%) had prosthetic valve IE, and 48 (8%) had a cardiac implantable electronic device IE. The 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria were more sensitive than either the modified Duke or 2015 ESC criteria (84.2% vs 74.9% and 80%, respectively; P < .001) without significant loss of specificity. The 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria were similarly sensitive but more specific than the 2023 ESC criteria (94% vs 82%; P < .001). The same pattern was seen for the clinical criteria (excluding surgical/pathologic results). New modifications in the 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria related to “major microbiological” and “imaging” criteria had the most impact. Conclusions The 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria represent a significant advance in the diagnostic classification of patients with suspected IE.

Abstract Background The 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria for IE were recently introduced to improve classification of IE for research and clinical purposes (Table 1). We compared the diagnostic accuracy of the new criteria with the 2000 modified Duke criteria, the 2015 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) criteria and a clinically adjudicated reference standard by a panel of international experts on IE.Table 1:Overview of changes in criteria from 2000 modified Duke to 2023 Duke-ISCVIDAdapted from: Fowler et al, Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2023 Methods The study population consisted of consecutively enrolled patients suspected to have IE and discussed by the IE team of the Amsterdam University Medical Center (AMC) between October 2016 and March 2021. A panel of international experts on IE assigned a final diagnosis, which served as the reference standard. We compared the definite classification of the 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria against this reference standard. We also evaluated accuracy of the new criteria, excluding data obtained from cardiac surgery and pathology (“Clinical Criteria”). Lastly, we quantified the added value of the proposed changes to the criteria, and compared the 2023 Duke-ISCVID to previous criteria using the McNemar test. We performed sensitivity analyses in patients who underwent cardiac surgery and patients who underwent TEE. Results 595 patients with suspected IE were included, of whom 399 (67%) were adjudicated as having IE. 111 patients (19%) had prosthetic valve IE, 48 (8%) had cardiac implantable electronic device IE. The 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria were more sensitive than the modified Duke or ESC criteria (84.2 vs 74.9 vs 80%,respectively, p < 0.001 for ISCVID vs ESC criteria) without significant loss of specificity (Table 2). After excluding cardiac surgery/pathology results, the 2023 Duke-ISCVID Clinical Criteria also had significantly better sensitivity than the modified Duke and ESC criteria, again without losing specificity. The changes in the 'major microbiological' and 'imaging' criteria had the most impact (Figure 1). Findings were robust in sensitivity analyses (Table 3). When classifying ‘definite’ and ‘possible’ IE as a positive test, the 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria had 99% sensitivity compared to the reference standard, but specificity decreased to 21%.Table 2:Diagnostic accuracy of modified Duke, ESC and Duke-ISCVID criteria Sensitivity and specificity are against the reference standard (adjudication panel). The Clinical Criteria classification is the Duke-ISCVID classification when results from surgery or post-mortem studies are not used to determine classification.Table 3:Sensitivity analyses of accuracy of Duke-ISCVID criteria In the Definite + Possible analysis, patients with possible IE according to the Duke-ISCVID criteria were also considered as having IE. All comparisons are against the reference standard (adjudication panel). Conclusion In this cohort, the 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria represent a significant advance in the diagnostic classification of patients suspected of IE. Added value of new Duke-ISCVID criteria compared to modified Duke criteria Each point (red square for sensitivity, blue circle for specificity) provides the diagnostic accuracy measure for the 2000 modified Duke Criteria with addition of a specific change from the Duke-ISCVID criteria. The horizontal bars represent the 95% confidence interval for the point estimate. The top points represent the modified Duke criteria without addition, the bottom points are the complete Duke-ISCVID criteria. Disclosures Larry M. Baddour, MD, Boston Scientific: Advisor/Consultant|Roivant Sciences: Advisor/Consultant Arnold S. Bayer, MD, Akagera Medicines: Grant/Research Support|ContraFect Corporation: Grant/Research Support Emanuele Durante Mangoni, MD,, PhD, Advanz pharma: Advisor/Consultant|Advanz pharma: Grant/Research Support|Advanz pharma: Honoraria|Angelini: Grant/Research Support|Angelini: Honoraria|Genentech: Advisor/Consultant|Genentech: Board Member|Genentech: Honoraria|Infectopharm: Grant/Research Support|Menarini: Board Member|Menarini: Honoraria|Pfizer: Advisor/Consultant|Pfizer: Board Member|Pfizer: Grant/Research Support|Pfizer: Honoraria|Roche: Advisor/Consultant|Roche: Board Member|Roche: Honoraria Thomas L. Holland, MD, Aridis: Advisor/Consultant|Basilea Pharmaceutica: Advisor/Consultant|Karius: Advisor/Consultant|Lysovant: Advisor/Consultant Adolf W. Karchmer, MD, Karius: Grant/Research Support|Up To Date: Honoraria Vance G. Fowler, MD, MHS, Amphliphi Biosciences, Integrated Biotherapeutics; C3J, Armata, Valanbio; Akagera, Aridis, Roche, Astra Zeneca: Advisor/Consultant|Genentech, Regeneron, Deep Blue, Basilea, Janssen;: Grant/Research Support|Infectious Diseases Society of America: Honoraria|MedImmune, Allergan, Pfizer, Advanced Liquid Logics, Theravance, Novartis, Merck; Medical Biosurfaces; Locus; Affinergy; Contrafect; Karius;: Grant/Research Support|Novartis, Debiopharm, Genentech, Achaogen, Affinium, Medicines Co., MedImmune, Bayer, Basilea, Affinergy, Janssen, Contrafect, Regeneron, Destiny,: Advisor/Consultant|Sepsis diagnostic: Patent pending|UpToDate: Royalties|Valanbio and ArcBio: Stock Options

BackgroundPreferential publication of studies with positive findings can lead to overestimation of diagnostic test accuracy (i.e. publication bias). Understanding the contribution of the editorial process to publication bias could inform interventions to optimize the evidence guiding clinical decisions.Purpose/HypothesisTo evaluate whether accuracy estimates, abstract conclusion positivity, and completeness of abstract reporting are associated with acceptance to radiology conferences and journals.Study TypeMeta‐research.PopulationAbstracts submitted to radiology conferences (European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) and International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM)) from 2008 to 2018 and manuscripts submitted to radiology journals (Radiology, Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging [JMRI]) from 2017 to 2018. Primary clinical studies evaluating sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic imaging test in humans with available editorial decisions were included.AssessmentPrimary variables (Youden's index [YI > 0.8 vs. <0.8], abstract conclusion positivity [positive vs. neutral/negative], number of reported items on the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies [STARD] for Abstract guideline) and confounding variables (prospective vs. retrospective/unreported, sample size, study duration, interobserver agreement assessment, subspecialty, modality) were extracted.Statistical TestsMultivariable logistic regression to obtain adjusted odds ratio (OR) as a measure of the association between the primary variables and acceptance by radiology conferences and journals; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P‐values were obtained; the threshold for statistical significance was P < 0.05.ResultsA total of 1000 conference abstracts (500 ESGAR and 500 ISMRM) and 1000 journal manuscripts (505 Radiology and 495 JMRI) were included. Conference abstract acceptance was not significantly associated with YI (adjusted OR = 0.97 for YI > 0.8; CI = 0.70–1.35), conclusion positivity (OR = 1.21 for positive conclusions; CI = 0.75–1.90) or STARD for Abstracts adherence (OR = 0.96 per unit increase in reported items; CI = 0.82–1.18). Manuscripts with positive abstract conclusions were less likely to be accepted by radiology journals (OR = 0.45; CI = 0.24–0.86), while YI (OR = 0.85; CI = 0.56–1.29) and STARD for Abstracts adherence (OR = 1.06; CI = 0.87–1.30) showed no significant association. Positive conclusions were present in 86.7% of submitted conference abstracts and 90.2% of journal manuscripts.Data ConclusionDiagnostic test accuracy studies with positive findings were not preferentially accepted by the evaluated radiology conferences or journals.Evidence Level3Technical EfficacyStage 2.

Abstract Background: Guidelines suggest the use of the Khorana score to select patients with solid cancer receiving chemotherapy for thromboprophylaxis to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE), but its performance in different types of cancers remains uncertain. Methods: The present analysis includes individual patient data from seven randomized controlled trials that had compared prophylactic (ultra)-low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) with placebo or observation in patients with solid cancer. The analysis addresses the performance of the continuous and dichotomized Khorana score in predicting the 6-month risk of VTE in the trial control groups, overall and in types of cancer studies, as well as the efficacy and safety of LMWH among patients with a high-risk Khorana score. Random effects meta-analysis provided the basis for summary estimates. Findings: In the 3,403 patients from the control groups included in the analyses, the mean age was 61 years, 59% were male, and 58% had lung cancer. During 6-months of follow-up, 188 patients (5.5%) developed VTE. Overall, the 6-month VTE incidence was 9.8% among high-risk Khorana score patients and 6.4% among low-to-intermediate risk patients (OR 1.6; 95%-CI 1.1-2.2). The dichotomous Khorana score performed differently in lung cancer patients (OR 1.1; 95%-CI, 0.72-1.7) than in those with other types of cancer (OR 4.4; 95%-CI, 2.7-7.3; P interaction=0.002). Among high-risk patients, LMWH decreased the risk of VTE by 64% compared to placebo or observation (OR 0.36; 95%-CI, 0.22-0.58). In the group of patients with types of cancer other than lung cancer and a high-risk Khorana score (N=619), the 6-month VTE incidence was 3.3% (95% CI, 1.4 to 7.7) among LMWH recipients and 13% (95% CI, 6.8 to 24) among those not receiving LMWH (OR 0.23, 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.46; P &lt;0.001). There was no difference in major bleeding (OR 1.2, 95% CI, 0.56 to 2.5). Interpretation: The Khorana score performs poorly in differentiating between those at high and low risk of VTE in patients with lung cancer, but is associated with a 4-fold increased risk of VTE in those with other types of cancer. Thromboprophylaxis is effective and safe in patients with a high-risk Khorana score. Funding: Canadian Institutes of Health Research knowledge synthesis grant, KRS 126594 Registration: International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), CRD42013003526. Disclosures Van Es: Pfizer: Employment, Other: Comment: Dr. van Es reports personal fees from Pfizer as a member of their advisory board. These fees are unrelated to this project.. Crowther: Alexion: Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Boehringer Ingelheim: Speakers Bureau; Leo Pharma: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Portola: Consultancy; Shinogi: Consultancy. Macbeth: Cancer Research UK: Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: Provision of Dalteparin for FRAGMATIC trial. Griffiths: Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Comment: I run an academic clinical trials unit, have received educational/investigator intiated research grants from companies that make these heparin agents. As consultant &gt; 3 years ago, advised Pfizer on clinical trial designs unrelated to this study., Research Funding. Streiff: Roche: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Consultancy, Research Funding; CSL Behring: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ageno: Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer AG: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS-Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bozas: PharmaMar: Honoraria. Maraveyas: Bayer: Other: Personal fees and conference attendance; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Grants and personal fees; Leo Pharma: Other: Grants, personal fees and conference attendance; Pfizer: Other: Personal fees. Loprinzi: Bristol Myers: Other: Grant - unrelated to this project; Janssen: Other: Grant - unrelated to this project. McBane: Bristol Myers Squibb: Other: Research grant for cancer associated VTE. Schünemann: Canadian Institutes of Health Research: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Parenteral anticoagulants may improve outcomes in patients with cancer by reducing the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and through a direct anti-tumour effect. Study-level meta-analysis indicates a reduction in VTE and provide moderate certainty that a small survival benefit exists; it is unclear if patients with specific cancers benefit more or less. Utilizing data from randomized controlled trials (RCT), this individual participant data meta-analysis examines the impact of heparin on survival, VTE and major bleeding in oncological patients randomized to low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or no LMWH. Methods: We performed a comprehensive systematic search for all RCTS (last search date March 2017) and contacted authors and sponsors to obtain individual participant data of patients with solid cancers and no other indication for prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation. We utilized the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence and produce an evidence profile. All analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. We calculated the impact on mortality through multivariable hierarchical models with patient-level variables as fixed effects and a categorical trial variable as a random effect. We adjusted the analysis for age, cancer type and metastasis status. To investigate whether intervention effects vary by predefined subgroups, including type of cancer, we tested interaction terms in the statistical model. Results: A total of 18 RCTs (n=10,041 participants) were eligible for inclusion and we obtained data from 82.4% of the participants (13 RCTs, n=8,278; n=4,139 for LMWH and n=4,139 for no LMWH). The meta-analysis revealed an adjusted relative risk of mortality within one year of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.95, 1.03) and a hazard ratio of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.82, 1.14) after one year. The relative risk for VTE was 0.58 (95% CI: 0.48, 0.71), 0.57 (95% CI: 0.44, 0.74) for symptomatic deep vein thrombosis and 0.58 (95%CI: 0.44, 0.77) for symptomatic pulmonary embolism, separately. For every 1,000 patients treated, approximately 16 fewer would experience symptomatic DVT and 16 fewer would experience any PE. The adjusted relative risk for major bleeding throughout trial duration was 1.24 (95% CI: 0.91, 1.69; P=0.17). Subgroup analysis, by cancer type, of VTE occurrence throughout trial duration identified lung cancer OR=0.52 (95% CI: 0.39, 0.68; P&lt;0.001) and pancreatic cancer OR=0.55 (95% CI: 0.35, 0.88; P=0.01) patients as experiencing the greatest benefit from LMWH treatment. The certainty of the evidence for the outcomes was moderate to high. Conclusion: LMWH reduces risk of VTE without increasing risk of bleeding but does not improve survival across all patients. Funding: Canadian Institutes of Health Research knowledge synthesis grant, KRS 126594 Registration: International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), CRD42013003526. Disclosures Schünemann: Canadian Institutes of Health Research: Research Funding. Crowther: Alexion: Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Boehringer Ingelheim: Speakers Bureau; Leo Pharma: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Portola: Consultancy; Shinogi: Consultancy. Macbeth: Pfizer: Other: Provision of Dalteparin for FRAGMATIC trial; Cancer Research UK: Research Funding. Griffiths: Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Comment: I run an academic clinical trials unit, have received educational/investigator intiated research grants from companies that make these heparin agents. As consultant &gt; 3 years ago, advised Pfizer on clinical trial designs unrelated to this study., Research Funding. Van Es: Pfizer: Employment, Other: Comment: Dr. van Es reports personal fees from Pfizer as a member of their advisory board. These fees are unrelated to this project.. Streiff: Roche: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Consultancy, Research Funding; CSL Behring: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ageno: BMS-Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer AG: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bozas: PharmaMar: Honoraria. McBane: Bristol Myers Squibb: Other: Research grant for cancer associated VTE. Maraveyas: Bayer: Other: Personal fees and conference attendance; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Grants and personal fees; Leo Pharma: Other: Grants, personal fees and conference attendance; Pfizer: Other: Personal fees. Loprinzi: Bristol Myers: Other: Grant - unrelated to this project; Janssen: Other: Grant - unrelated to this project.

Abstract Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are an emerging treatment option for patients with cancer and acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), but studies have reported inconsistent results. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of DOACs and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) in these patients. MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and conference proceedings were searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. Additional data were obtained from the original authors to homogenize definitions for all study outcomes. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were recurrent VTE and major bleeding, respectively. Other outcomes included the composite of recurrent VTE and major bleeding, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB), and all-cause mortality. Summary relative risks (RRs) were calculated in a random effects meta-analysis. In the primary analysis comprising 2607 patients, the risk of recurrent VTE was nonsignificantly lower with DOACs than with LMWHs (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.39-1.17). Conversely, the risks of major bleeding (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.55-3.35) and CRNMB (RR, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.73-3.64) were nonsignificantly higher. The risk of the composite of recurrent VTE or major bleeding was nonsignificantly lower with DOACs than with LMWHs (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.60-1.23). Mortality was comparable in both groups (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.68-1.36). Findings were consistent during the on-treatment period and in those with incidental VTE. In conclusion, DOACs are an effective treatment option for patients with cancer and acute VTE, although caution is needed in patients at high risk of bleeding.

Abstract Objective Risk scores and accelerated diagnostic protocols can identify chest pain patients with low risk of major adverse cardiac event who could be discharged early from the ED , saving time and costs. We aimed to derive and validate a chest pain score and accelerated diagnostic protocol ( ADP ) that could safely increase the proportion of patients suitable for early discharge. Methods Logistic regression identified statistical predictors for major adverse cardiac events in a derivation cohort. Statistical coefficients were converted to whole numbers to create a score. Clinician feedback was used to improve the clinical plausibility and the usability of the final score (Emergency Department Assessment of Chest pain Score [ EDACS ]). EDACS was combined with electrocardiogram results and troponin results at 0 and 2 h to develop an ADP ( EDACS‐ADP ). The score and EDACS‐ADP were validated and tested for reproducibility in separate cohorts of patients. Results In the derivation ( n = 1974) and validation ( n = 608) cohorts, the EDACS‐ADP classified 42.2% (sensitivity 99.0%, specificity 49.9%) and 51.3% (sensitivity 100.0%, specificity 59.0%) as low risk of major adverse cardiac events, respectively. The intra‐class correlation coefficient for categorisation of patients as low risk was 0.87. Conclusion The EDACS‐ADP identified approximately half of the patients presenting to the ED with possible cardiac chest pain as having low risk of short‐term major adverse cardiac events, with high sensitivity. This is a significant improvement on similar, previously reported protocols. The EDACS‐ADP is reproducible and has the potential to make considerable cost reductions to health systems.