Women's College Hospital

Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.

Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications, however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. The process involved a literature review for relevant checklists and research, a Delphi survey of an international panel of experts to guide item selection, and a face to face panel meeting. The resultant 12 item TIDieR checklist (brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who provided, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned), how well (actual)) is an extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement (item 5) and the SPIRIT 2013 statement (item 11). While the emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR checklist and guide, with an explanation and elaboration for each item, and examples of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.

OBJECTIVE: The 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR; formerly, the American Rheumatism Association) classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been criticized for their lack of sensitivity in early disease. This work was undertaken to develop new classification criteria for RA. METHODS: A joint working group from the ACR and the European League Against Rheumatism developed, in 3 phases, a new approach to classifying RA. The work focused on identifying, among patients newly presenting with undifferentiated inflammatory synovitis, factors that best discriminated between those who were and those who were not at high risk for persistent and/or erosive disease--this being the appropriate current paradigm underlying the disease construct "rheumatoid arthritis." RESULTS: In the new criteria set, classification as "definite RA" is based on the confirmed presence of synovitis in at least 1 joint, absence of an alternative diagnosis that better explains the synovitis, and achievement of a total score of 6 or greater (of a possible 10) from the individual scores in 4 domains: number and site of involved joints (score range 0-5), serologic abnormality (score range 0-3), elevated acute-phase response (score range 0-1), and symptom duration (2 levels; range 0-1). CONCLUSION: This new classification system redefines the current paradigm of RA by focusing on features at earlier stages of disease that are associated with persistent and/or erosive disease, rather than defining the disease by its late-stage features. This will refocus attention on the important need for earlier diagnosis and institution of effective disease-suppressing therapy to prevent or minimize the occurrence of the undesirable sequelae that currently comprise the paradigm underlying the disease construct "rheumatoid arthritis."

The protocol of a clinical trial serves as the foundation for study planning, conduct, reporting, and appraisal. However, trial protocols and existing protocol guidelines vary greatly in content and quality. This article describes the systematic development and scope of SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013, a guideline for the minimum content of a clinical trial protocol.The 33-item SPIRIT checklist applies to protocols for all clinical trials and focuses on content rather than format. The checklist recommends a full description of what is planned; it does not prescribe how to design or conduct a trial. By providing guidance for key content, the SPIRIT recommendations aim to facilitate the drafting of high-quality protocols. Adherence to SPIRIT would also enhance the transparency and completeness of trial protocols for the benefit of investigators, trial participants, patients, sponsors, funders, research ethics committees or institutional review boards, peer reviewers, journals, trial registries, policymakers, regulators, and other key stakeholders.

High quality protocols facilitate proper conduct, reporting, and external review of clinical trials. However, the completeness of trial protocols is often inadequate. To help improve the content and quality of protocols, an international group of stakeholders developed the SPIRIT 2013 Statement (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials). The SPIRIT Statement provides guidance in the form of a checklist of recommended items to include in a clinical trial protocol. This SPIRIT 2013 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides important information to promote full understanding of the checklist recommendations. For each checklist item, we provide a rationale and detailed description; a model example from an actual protocol; and relevant references supporting its importance. We strongly recommend that this explanatory paper be used in conjunction with the SPIRIT Statement. A website of resources is also available (www.spirit-statement.org). The SPIRIT 2013 Explanation and Elaboration paper, together with the Statement, should help with the drafting of trial protocols. Complete documentation of key trial elements can facilitate transparency and protocol review for the benefit of all stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback is widely used as a strategy to improve professional practice either on its own or as a component of multifaceted quality improvement interventions. This is based on the belief that healthcare professionals are prompted to modify their practice when given performance feedback showing that their clinical practice is inconsistent with a desirable target. Despite its prevalence as a quality improvement strategy, there remains uncertainty regarding both the effectiveness of audit and feedback in improving healthcare practice and the characteristics of audit and feedback that lead to greater impact. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of audit and feedback on the practice of healthcare professionals and patient outcomes and to examine factors that may explain variation in the effectiveness of audit and feedback. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2010, Issue 4, part of The Cochrane Library. www.thecochranelibrary.com, including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register (searched 10 December 2010); MEDLINE, Ovid (1950 to November Week 3 2010) (searched 09 December 2010); EMBASE, Ovid (1980 to 2010 Week 48) (searched 09 December 2010); CINAHL, Ebsco (1981 to present) (searched 10 December 2010); Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index, ISI Web of Science (1975 to present) (searched 12-15 September 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of audit and feedback (defined as a summary of clinical performance over a specified period of time) that reported objectively measured health professional practice or patient outcomes. In the case of multifaceted interventions, only trials in which audit and feedback was considered the core, essential aspect of at least one intervention arm were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All data were abstracted by two independent review authors. For the primary outcome(s) in each study, we calculated the median absolute risk difference (RD) (adjusted for baseline performance) of compliance with desired practice compliance for dichotomous outcomes and the median percent change relative to the control group for continuous outcomes. Across studies the median effect size was weighted by number of health professionals involved in each study. We investigated the following factors as possible explanations for the variation in the effectiveness of interventions across comparisons: format of feedback, source of feedback, frequency of feedback, instructions for improvement, direction of change required, baseline performance, profession of recipient, and risk of bias within the trial itself. We also conducted exploratory analyses to assess the role of context and the targeted clinical behaviour. Quantitative (meta-regression), visual, and qualitative analyses were undertaken to examine variation in effect size related to these factors. MAIN RESULTS: We included and analysed 140 studies for this review. In the main analyses, a total of 108 comparisons from 70 studies compared any intervention in which audit and feedback was a core, essential component to usual care and evaluated effects on professional practice. After excluding studies at high risk of bias, there were 82 comparisons from 49 studies featuring dichotomous outcomes, and the weighted median adjusted RD was a 4.3% (interquartile range (IQR) 0.5% to 16%) absolute increase in healthcare professionals' compliance with desired practice. Across 26 comparisons from 21 studies with continuous outcomes, the weighted median adjusted percent change relative to control was 1.3% (IQR = 1.3% to 28.9%). For patient outcomes, the weighted median RD was -0.4% (IQR -1.3% to 1.6%) for 12 comparisons from six studies reporting dichotomous outcomes and the weighted median percentage change was 17% (IQR 1.5% to 17%) for eight comparisons from five studies reporting continuous outcomes. Multivariable meta-regression indicated that feedback may be more effective when baseline performance is low, the source is a supervisor or colleague, it is provided more than once, it is delivered in both verbal and written formats, and when it includes both explicit targets and an action plan. In addition, the effect size varied based on the clinical behaviour targeted by the intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Audit and feedback generally leads to small but potentially important improvements in professional practice. The effectiveness of audit and feedback seems to depend on baseline performance and how the feedback is provided. Future studies of audit and feedback should directly compare different ways of providing feedback.

BACKGROUND: Edoxaban is a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor with proven antithrombotic effects. The long-term efficacy and safety of edoxaban as compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation is not known. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial comparing two once-daily regimens of edoxaban with warfarin in 21,105 patients with moderate-to-high-risk atrial fibrillation (median follow-up, 2.8 years). The primary efficacy end point was stroke or systemic embolism. Each edoxaban regimen was tested for noninferiority to warfarin during the treatment period. The principal safety end point was major bleeding. RESULTS: The annualized rate of the primary end point during treatment was 1.50% with warfarin (median time in the therapeutic range, 68.4%), as compared with 1.18% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.79; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.99; P<0.001 for noninferiority) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 1.07; 97.5% CI, 0.87 to 1.31; P=0.005 for noninferiority). In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was a trend favoring high-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 0.87; 97.5% CI, 0.73 to 1.04; P=0.08) and an unfavorable trend with low-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 1.13; 97.5% CI, 0.96 to 1.34; P=0.10). The annualized rate of major bleeding was 3.43% with warfarin versus 2.75% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.91; P<0.001) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.55; P<0.001). The corresponding annualized rates of death from cardiovascular causes were 3.17% versus 2.74% (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.97; P=0.01), and 2.71% (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.96; P=0.008), and the corresponding rates of the key secondary end point (a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes) were 4.43% versus 3.85% (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.96; P=0.005), and 4.23% (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.05; P=0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Both once-daily regimens of edoxaban were noninferior to warfarin with respect to the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism and were associated with significantly lower rates of bleeding and death from cardiovascular causes. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development; ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00781391.).

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical features, natural history, and outcomes for women with "triple-negative" breast cancer with women with other types of breast cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We studied a cohort of 1,601 patients with breast cancer, diagnosed between January 1987 and December 1997 at Women's College Hospital in Toronto. Triple-negative breast cancers were defined as those that were estrogen receptor negative, progesterone receptor negative, and HER2neu negative. The prognostic significance of triple-negative breast cancer was explored. RESULTS: The median follow-up time of the 1,601 women was 8.1 years. One hundred and eighty of 1,601 patients (11.2%) had triple-negative breast cancer. Compared with other women with breast cancer, those with triple-negative breast cancer had an increased likelihood of distant recurrence (hazard ratio, 2.6; 95% confidence interval, 2.0-3.5; P < 0.0001) and death (hazard ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-4.5; P < 0.001) within 5 years of diagnosis but not thereafter. The pattern of recurrence was also qualitatively different; among the triple-negative group, the risk of distant recurrence peaked at approximately 3 years and declined rapidly thereafter. Among the "other" group, the recurrence risk seemed to be constant over the period of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Triple-negative breast cancers have a more aggressive clinical course than other forms of breast cancer, but the adverse effect is transient.

This paper describes the development of an evaluative outcome measure for patients with upper extremity musculoskeletal conditions. The goal is to produce a brief, self-administered measure of symptoms and functional status, with a focus on physical function, to be used by clinicians in daily practice and as a research tool. This is a joint initiative of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), the Council of Musculoskeletal Specialty Societies (COMSS), and the Institute for Work and Health (Toronto, Ontario). Our approach is consistent with previously described strategies for scale development. In Stage 1, Item Generation, a group of methodologists and clinical experts reviewed 13 outcome measurement scales currently in use and generated a list of 821 items. In Stage 2a, Initial Item Reduction, these 821 items were reduced to 78 items using various strategies including removal of items which were generic, repetitive, not reflective of disability, or not relevant to the upper extremity or to one of the targeted concepts of symptoms and functional status. Items not highly endorsed in a survey of content experts were also eliminated. Stage 2b, Further Item Reduction, will be based on results of field testing in which patients complete the 78-item questionnaire. This field testing, which is currently underway in 20 centers in the United States, Canada, and Australia, will generate the final format and content of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. Future work includes plans for validity and reliability testing.

BACKGROUND: Implementing new practices requires changes in the behaviour of relevant actors, and this is facilitated by understanding of the determinants of current and desired behaviours. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was developed by a collaboration of behavioural scientists and implementation researchers who identified theories relevant to implementation and grouped constructs from these theories into domains. The collaboration aimed to provide a comprehensive, theory-informed approach to identify determinants of behaviour. The first version was published in 2005, and a subsequent version following a validation exercise was published in 2012. This guide offers practical guidance for those who wish to apply the TDF to assess implementation problems and support intervention design. It presents a brief rationale for using a theoretical approach to investigate and address implementation problems, summarises the TDF and its development, and describes how to apply the TDF to achieve implementation objectives. Examples from the implementation research literature are presented to illustrate relevant methods and practical considerations. METHODS: Researchers from Canada, the UK and Australia attended a 3-day meeting in December 2012 to build an international collaboration among researchers and decision-makers interested in the advancing use of the TDF. The participants were experienced in using the TDF to assess implementation problems, design interventions, and/or understand change processes. This guide is an output of the meeting and also draws on the authors' collective experience. Examples from the implementation research literature judged by authors to be representative of specific applications of the TDF are included in this guide. RESULTS: We explain and illustrate methods, with a focus on qualitative approaches, for selecting and specifying target behaviours key to implementation, selecting the study design, deciding the sampling strategy, developing study materials, collecting and analysing data, and reporting findings of TDF-based studies. Areas for development include methods for triangulating data, e.g. from interviews, questionnaires and observation and methods for designing interventions based on TDF-based problem analysis. CONCLUSIONS: We offer this guide to the implementation community to assist in the application of the TDF to achieve implementation objectives. Benefits of using the TDF include the provision of a theoretical basis for implementation studies, good coverage of potential reasons for slow diffusion of evidence into practice and a method for progressing from theory-based investigation to intervention.

BACKGROUND: Extensive mammographic density is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer and makes the detection of cancer by mammography difficult, but the influence of density on risk according to method of cancer detection is unknown. METHODS: We carried out three nested case-control studies in screened populations with 1112 matched case-control pairs. We examined the association of the measured percentage of density in the baseline mammogram with risk of breast cancer, according to method of cancer detection, time since the initiation of screening, and age. RESULTS: As compared with women with density in less than 10% of the mammogram, women with density in 75% or more had an increased risk of breast cancer (odds ratio, 4.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0 to 7.4), whether detected by screening (odds ratio, 3.5; 95% CI, 2.0 to 6.2) or less than 12 months after a negative screening examination (odds ratio, 17.8; 95% CI, 4.8 to 65.9). Increased risk of breast cancer, whether detected by screening or other means, persisted for at least 8 years after study entry and was greater in younger than in older women. For women younger than the median age of 56 years, 26% of all breast cancers and 50% of cancers detected less than 12 months after a negative screening test were attributable to density in 50% or more of the mammogram. CONCLUSIONS: Extensive mammographic density is strongly associated with the risk of breast cancer detected by screening or between screening tests. A substantial fraction of breast cancers can be attributed to this risk factor.

BACKGROUND: As more patients survive the acute respiratory distress syndrome, an understanding of the long-term outcomes of this condition is needed. METHODS: We evaluated 109 survivors of the acute respiratory distress syndrome 3, 6, and 12 months after discharge from the intensive care unit. At each visit, patients were interviewed and underwent a physical examination, pulmonary-function testing, a six-minute-walk test, and a quality-of-life evaluation. RESULTS: Patients who survived the acute respiratory distress syndrome were young (median age, 45 years) and severely ill (median Acute Physiology, Age, and Chronic Health Evaluation score, 23) and had a long stay in the intensive care unit (median, 25 days). Patients had lost 18 percent of their base-line body weight by the time they were discharged from the intensive care unit and stated that muscle weakness and fatigue were the reasons for their functional limitation. Lung volume and spirometric measurements were normal by 6 months, but carbon monoxide diffusion capacity remained low throughout the 12-month follow-up. No patients required supplemental oxygen at 12 months, but 6 percent of patients had arterial oxygen saturation values below 88 percent during exercise. The median score for the physical role domain of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form General Health Survey (a health-related quality-of-life measure) increased from 0 at 3 months to 25 at 12 months (score in the normal population, 84). The distance walked in six minutes increased from a median of 281 m at 3 months to 422 m at 12 months; all values were lower than predicted. The absence of systemic corticosteroid treatment, the absence of illness acquired during the intensive care unit stay, and rapid resolution of lung injury and multiorgan dysfunction were associated with better functional status during the one-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Survivors of the acute respiratory distress syndrome have persistent functional disability one year after discharge from the intensive care unit. Most patients have extrapulmonary conditions, with muscle wasting and weakness being most prominent.

Stigma is a well-documented barrier to health seeking behavior, engagement in care and adherence to treatment across a range of health conditions globally. In order to halt the stigmatization process and mitigate the harmful consequences of health-related stigma (i.e. stigma associated with health conditions), it is critical to have an explicit theoretical framework to guide intervention development, measurement, research, and policy. Existing stigma frameworks typically focus on one health condition in isolation and often concentrate on the psychological pathways occurring among individuals. This tendency has encouraged a siloed approach to research on health-related stigmas, focusing on individuals, impeding both comparisons across stigmatized conditions and research on innovations to reduce health-related stigma and improve health outcomes. We propose the Health Stigma and Discrimination Framework, which is a global, crosscutting framework based on theory, research, and practice, and demonstrate its application to a range of health conditions, including leprosy, epilepsy, mental health, cancer, HIV, and obesity/overweight. We also discuss how stigma related to race, gender, sexual orientation, class, and occupation intersects with health-related stigmas, and examine how the framework can be used to enhance research, programming, and policy efforts. Research and interventions inspired by a common framework will enable the field to identify similarities and differences in stigma processes across diseases and will amplify our collective ability to respond effectively and at-scale to a major driver of poor health outcomes globally.

BACKGROUND: Data concerning the efficacy of bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy for reducing the risk of gynecologic cancer in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations are limited. We investigated whether this procedure reduces the risk of cancers of the coelomic epithelium and breast in women who carry such mutations. METHODS: A total of 551 women with disease-associated germ-line BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations were identified from registries and studied for the occurrence of ovarian and breast cancer. We determined the incidence of ovarian cancer in 259 women who had undergone bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy and in 292 matched controls who had not undergone the procedure. In a subgroup of 241 women with no history of breast cancer or prophylactic mastectomy, the incidence of breast cancer was determined in 99 women who had undergone bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy and in 142 matched controls. The length of postoperative follow-up for both groups was at least eight years. RESULTS: Six women who underwent prophylactic oophorectomy (2.3 percent) received a diagnosis of stage I ovarian cancer at the time of the procedure; two women (0.8 percent) received a diagnosis of papillary serous peritoneal carcinoma 3.8 and 8.6 years after bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy. Among the controls, 58 women (19.9 percent) received a diagnosis of ovarian cancer, after a mean follow-up of 8.8 years. With the exclusion of the six women whose cancer was diagnosed at surgery, prophylactic oophorectomy significantly reduced the risk of coelomic epithelial cancer (hazard ratio, 0.04; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.01 to 0.16). Of 99 women who underwent bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy and who were studied to determine the risk of breast cancer, breast cancer developed in 21 (21.2 percent), as compared with 60 (42.3 percent) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.29 to 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy reduces the risk of coelomic epithelial cancer and breast cancer in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.

CONTEXT: A predictive model of mortality in heart failure may be useful for clinicians to improve communication with and care of hospitalized patients. OBJECTIVES: To identify predictors of mortality and to develop and to validate a model using information available at hospital presentation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective study of 4031 community-based patients presenting with heart failure at multiple hospitals in Ontario, Canada (2624 patients in the derivation cohort from 1999-2001 and 1407 patients in the validation cohort from 1997-1999), who had been identified as part of the Enhanced Feedback for Effective Cardiac Treatment (EFFECT) study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All-cause 30-day and 1-year mortality. RESULTS: The mortality rates for the derivation cohort and validation cohort, respectively, were 8.9% and 8.2% in hospital, 10.7% and 10.4% at 30 days, and 32.9% and 30.5% at 1 year. Multivariable predictors of mortality at both 30 days and 1 year included older age, lower systolic blood pressure, higher respiratory rate, higher urea nitrogen level (all P<.001), and hyponatremia (P<.01). Comorbid conditions associated with mortality included cerebrovascular disease (30-day mortality odds ratio [OR], 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.98; P =.03), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.22-2.27; P =.002), hepatic cirrhosis (OR, 3.22; 95% CI, 1.08-9.65; P =.04), dementia (OR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.77-3.65; P<.001), and cancer (OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.28-2.70; P =.001). A risk index stratified the risk of death and identified low- and high-risk individuals. Patients with very low-risk scores (< or =60) had a mortality rate of 0.4% at 30 days and 7.8% at 1 year. Patients with very high-risk scores (>150) had a mortality rate of 59.0% at 30 days and 78.8% at 1 year. Patients with higher 1-year risk scores had reduced survival at all times up to 1 year (log-rank, P<.001). For the derivation cohort, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the model was 0.80 for 30-day mortality and 0.77 for 1-year mortality. Predicted mortality rates in the validation cohort closely matched observed rates across the entire spectrum of risk. CONCLUSIONS: Among community-based heart failure patients, factors identifiable within hours of hospital presentation predicted mortality risk at 30 days and 1 year. The externally validated predictive index may assist clinicians in estimating heart failure mortality risk and in providing quantitative guidance for decision making in heart failure care.

The follow-up records of 605 infants with birth weights of less than 1,500 g, with data available for 2 years after birth, were examined for evidence of abnormal pulmonary signs or symptoms. A total of 119 infants were identified and the neonatal oxygen requirements of these infants were compared with those of 486 infants who had normal pulmonary function. A requirement for oxygen at 28 days of life had a positive predictive value for abnormal pulmonary findings at the time of follow-up of only 38%, whereas 31% of those with normal pulmonary findings at the time of follow-up were still receiving oxygen at this age. The need for oxygen at 28 days was a good predictor of abnormal findings in infants of greater than or equal to 30 weeks' gestational age at birth but became increasingly less useful as gestational age decreased. It was found that, irrespective of gestational age at birth, the requirement for additional oxygen at 36 weeks' corrected postnatal gestational age was a better predictor of abnormal outcome, increasing the positive predictive value to 63%. The prediction of a normal outcome remained 90% for infants not receiving oxygen at this corrected gestational age.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors such as sotagliflozin in preventing cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes with chronic kidney disease with or without albuminuria have not been well studied. METHODS: of body-surface area), and risks for cardiovascular disease were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive sotagliflozin or placebo. The primary end point was changed during the trial to the composite of the total number of deaths from cardiovascular causes, hospitalizations for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure. The trial ended early owing to loss of funding. RESULTS: Of 19,188 patients screened, 10,584 were enrolled, with 5292 assigned to the sotagliflozin group and 5292 assigned to the placebo group, and followed for a median of 16 months. The rate of primary end-point events was 5.6 events per 100 patient-years in the sotagliflozin group and 7.5 events per 100 patient-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.88; P<0.001). The rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes per 100 patient-years was 2.2 with sotagliflozin and 2.4 with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.12; P = 0.35). For the original coprimary end point of the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, the hazard ratio was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.99); for the original coprimary end point of the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure, the hazard ratio was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.66 to 0.91). Diarrhea, genital mycotic infections, volume depletion, and diabetic ketoacidosis were more common with sotagliflozin than with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease, with or without albuminuria, sotagliflozin resulted in a lower risk of the composite of deaths from cardiovascular causes, hospitalizations for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure than placebo but was associated with adverse events. (Funded by Sanofi and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals; SCORED ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03315143.).

BACKGROUND: The radiographic appearance of the female breast varies from woman to woman depending on the relative amounts of fat and connective and epithelial tissues present. Variations in the mammographic density of breast tissue are referred to as the parenchymal pattern of the breast. Fat is radiologically translucent or clear (darker appearance), and both connective and epithelial tissues are radiologically dense (lighter appearance). Previous studies have generally supported an association between parenchymal patterns and breast cancer risk (greater risk with increasing densities), but there has been considerable heterogeneity in risk estimates reported. PURPOSE: Our objective was to determine the level of breast cancer risk associated with varying mammographic densities by quantitatively classifying breast density with conventional radiological methods and novel computer-assisted methods. METHODS: From the medical records of a cohort of 45,000 women assigned to mammography in the Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Study (NBSS), a multicenter, randomized trial, mammograms from 354 case subjects and 354 control subjects were identified. Case subjects were selected from those women in whom histologically verified invasive breast cancer had developed 12 months or more after entering the trial. Control subjects were selected from those of similar age who, after a similar period of observation, had not developed breast cancer. The mammogram taken at the beginning of the NBSS was the image used for measurements. Mammograms were classified into six categories of density, either by radiologists or by computer-assisted measurements. All radiological classification and computer-assisted measurements were made using one craniocaudal view from the breast contralateral to the cancer site in case subjects and the corresponding breast of control subjects. All P values represent two-sided tests of statistical significance. RESULTS: For all subjects, there was a 43% increase in the relative risk (RR) between the lower and the next higher category of density, as determined by radiologists, and there was a 32% increase as determined by the computer-assisted method. For all subjects, the RR in the most extensive category relative to the least was 6.05 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.82-12.97) for radiologists and 4.04 (95% CI = 2.12-7.69) for computer-assisted methods. Statistically significant increases in breast cancer risk associated with increasing mammographic density were found by both radiologists and computer-assisted methods for women in the age category 40-49 years (P = .005 for radiologists and P = .003 for computer-assisted measurements) and the age category 50-59 years (P = .002 for radiologists and P = .001 for computer-assisted measurements). CONCLUSION: These results show that increases in the level of breast tissue density as assessed by mammography are associated with increases in risk for breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an increasingly attainable goal, but there is no widely used definition of remission that is stringent but achievable and could be applied uniformly as an outcome measure in clinical trials. This work was undertaken to develop such a definition. METHODS: A committee consisting of members of the American College of Rheumatology, the European League Against Rheumatism, and the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Initiative met to guide the process and review prespecified analyses from RA clinical trials. The committee requested a stringent definition (little, if any, active disease) and decided to use core set measures including, as a minimum, joint counts and levels of an acute-phase reactant to define remission. Members were surveyed to select the level of each core set measure that would be consistent with remission. Candidate definitions of remission were tested, including those that constituted a number of individual measures of remission (Boolean approach) as well as definitions using disease activity indexes. To select a definition of remission, trial data were analyzed to examine the added contribution of patient-reported outcomes and the ability of candidate measures to predict later good radiographic and functional outcomes. RESULTS: Survey results for the definition of remission suggested indexes at published thresholds and a count of core set measures, with each measure scored as 1 or less (e.g., tender and swollen joint counts, C-reactive protein [CRP] level, and global assessments on a 0-10 scale). Analyses suggested the need to include a patient-reported measure. Examination of 2-year followup data suggested that many candidate definitions performed comparably in terms of predicting later good radiographic and functional outcomes, although 28-joint Disease Activity Score-based measures of remission did not predict good radiographic outcomes as well as the other candidate definitions did. Given these and other considerations, we propose that a patient's RA can be defined as being in remission based on one of two definitions: (a) when scores on the tender joint count, swollen joint count, CRP (in mg/dl), and patient global assessment (0-10 scale) are all ≤ 1, or (b) when the score on the Simplified Disease Activity Index is ≤ 3.3. CONCLUSION: We propose two new definitions of remission, both of which can be uniformly applied and widely used in RA clinical trials. We recommend that one of these be selected as an outcome measure in each trial and that the results on both be reported for each trial.

The CONSORT 2010 statement provides minimum guidelines for reporting randomized trials. Its widespread use has been instrumental in ensuring transparency in the evaluation of new interventions. More recently, there has been a growing recognition that interventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) need to undergo rigorous, prospective evaluation to demonstrate impact on health outcomes. The CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence) extension is a new reporting guideline for clinical trials evaluating interventions with an AI component. It was developed in parallel with its companion statement for clinical trial protocols: SPIRIT-AI (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-Artificial Intelligence). Both guidelines were developed through a staged consensus process involving literature review and expert consultation to generate 29 candidate items, which were assessed by an international multi-stakeholder group in a two-stage Delphi survey (103 stakeholders), agreed upon in a two-day consensus meeting (31 stakeholders) and refined through a checklist pilot (34 participants). The CONSORT-AI extension includes 14 new items that were considered sufficiently important for AI interventions that they should be routinely reported in addition to the core CONSORT 2010 items. CONSORT-AI recommends that investigators provide clear descriptions of the AI intervention, including instructions and skills required for use, the setting in which the AI intervention is integrated, the handling of inputs and outputs of the AI intervention, the human-AI interaction and provision of an analysis of error cases. CONSORT-AI will help promote transparency and completeness in reporting clinical trials for AI interventions. It will assist editors and peer reviewers, as well as the general readership, to understand, interpret and critically appraise the quality of clinical trial design and risk of bias in the reported outcomes.