Quantifying Individual-Level Inaccuracy in Glomerular Filtration Rate Estimation: A Cross-Sectional Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 175, No 8

Background: Although the population-level differences between estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and measured glomerular filtration rate (mGFR) are well recognized, the magnitude and potential clinical implications of individual-level differences are unknown. Objective: To quantify the magnitude and consequences of the individual-level differences between mGFRs and eGFRs. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Four U.S. community-based epidemiologic cohort studies with mGFR. Patients: 3223 participants in 4 studies. Measurements: The GFRs were measured using urinary iothalamate and plasma iohexol clearance; the eGFR was calculated from serum creatinine concentration alone (eGFRCR) and with cystatin C. All GFR results are presented as mL/min/1.73 m2. Results: The participants' mean age was 59 years; 32% were Black, 55% were women, and the mean mGFR was 68. The population-level differences between mGFR and eGFRCR were small; the median difference (mGFR − eGFR) was −0.6 (95% CI, −1.2 to −0.2); however, the individual-level differences were large. At an eGFRCR of 60, 50% of mGFRs ranged from 52 to 67, 80% from 45 to 76, and 95% from 36 to 87. At an eGFRCR of 30, 50% of mGFRs ranged from 27 to 38, 80% from 23 to 44, and 95% from 17 to 54. Substantial disagreement in chronic kidney disease staging by mGFR and eGFRCR was present. Among those with eGFRCR of 45 to 59, 36% had mGFR greater than 60 whereas 20% had mGFR less than 45; among those with eGFRCR of 15 to 29, 30% had mGFR greater than 30 and 5% had mGFR less than 15. The eGFR based on cystatin C did not provide substantial improvement. Limitation: Single measurement of mGFR and serum markers without short-term replicates Conclusion: A substantial individual-level discrepancy exists between the mGFR and the eGFR. Laboratories reporting eGFR should consider including the extent of this uncertainty to avoid misinterpretation of eGFR as an mGFR replacement. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.

Heterogeneity in Obesity Prevalence Among Asian American Adults

Background: Obesity increases the risk for metabolic and cardiovascular disease, and this risk occurs at lower body mass index (BMI) thresholds in Asian adults than in White adults. The degree to which obesity prevalence varies across heterogeneous Asian American subgroups is unclear because most obesity estimates combine all Asian Americans into a single group. Objective: To quantify obesity prevalence in Asian American subgroups among U.S. adults using both standard BMI categorizations and categorizations tailored to Asian populations. Design: Cross-sectional. Setting: United States, 2013 to 2020. Participants: The analytic sample included 2 882 158 adults aged 18 years or older in the U.S. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys (2013 to 2020). Participants self-identified as non-Hispanic White ([NHW] n = 2 547 965); non-Hispanic Black ([NHB] n = 263 136); or non-Hispanic Asian ([NHA] n = 71 057), comprising Asian Indian (n = 13 916), Chinese (n = 11 686), Filipino (n = 11 815), Japanese (n = 12 473), Korean (n = 3634), and Vietnamese (n = 2618) Americans. Measurements: Obesity prevalence adjusted for age and sex calculated using both standard BMI thresholds (≥30 kg/m2) and BMI thresholds modified for Asian adults (≥27.5 kg/m2), based on self-reported height and weight. Results: Adjusted obesity prevalence (by standard categorization) was 11.7% (95% CI, 11.2% to 12.2%) in NHA, 39.7% (CI, 39.4% to 40.1%) in NHB, and 29.4% (CI, 29.3% to 29.5%) in NHW participants; the prevalence was 16.8% (CI, 15.2% to 18.5%) in Filipino, 15.3% (CI, 13.2% to 17.5%) in Japanese, 11.2% (CI, 10.2% to 12.2%) in Asian Indian, 8.5% (CI, 6.8% to 10.5%) in Korean, 6.5% (CI, 5.5% to 7.5%) in Chinese, and 6.3% (CI, 5.1% to 7.8%) in Vietnamese Americans. The prevalence using modified criteria (BMI ≥27.5 kg/m2) was 22.4% (CI, 21.8% to 23.1%) in NHA participants overall and 28.7% (CI, 26.8% to 30.7%) in Filipino, 26.7% (CI, 24.1% to 29.5%) in Japanese, 22.4% (CI, 21.1% to 23.7%) in Asian Indian, 17.4% (CI, 15.2% to 19.8%) in Korean, 13.6% (CI, 11.7% to 15.9%) in Vietnamese, and 13.2% (CI, 12.0% to 14.5%) in Chinese Americans. Limitation: Body mass index estimates rely on self-reported data. Conclusion: Substantial heterogeneity in obesity prevalence exists among Asian American subgroups in the United States. Future studies and public health efforts should consider this heterogeneity. Primary Funding Source: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety Between Apixaban, Dabigatran, Edoxaban, and Rivaroxaban Among Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Multinational Population-Based Cohort Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 175, No 11

Background: Current guidelines recommend using direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) over warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but head-to-head trial data do not exist to guide the choice of DOAC. Objective: To do a large-scale comparison between all DOACs (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban) in routine clinical practice. Design: Multinational population-based cohort study. Setting: Five standardized electronic health care databases, which covered 221 million people in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Participants: Patients who were newly diagnosed with AF from 2010 through 2019 and received a new DOAC prescription. Measurements: Database-specific hazard ratios (HRs) of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), and all-cause mortality between DOACs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by propensity score and pooled using a random-effects model. Results: A total of 527 226 new DOAC users met the inclusion criteria (apixaban, n = 281 320; dabigatran, n = 61 008; edoxaban, n = 12 722; and rivaroxaban, n = 172 176). Apixaban use was associated with lower risk for GIB than use of dabigatran (HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.70 to 0.94]), edoxaban (HR, 0.77 [CI, 0.66 to 0.91]), or rivaroxaban (HR, 0.72 [CI, 0.66 to 0.79]). No substantial differences were observed for other outcomes or DOAC–DOAC comparisons. The results were consistent for patients aged 80 years or older. Consistent associations between lower GIB risk and apixaban versus rivaroxaban were observed among patients receiving the standard dose (HR, 0.72 [CI, 0.64 to 0.82]), those receiving a reduced dose (HR, 0.68 [CI, 0.61 to 0.77]), and those with chronic kidney disease (HR, 0.68 [CI, 0.59 to 0.77]). Limitation: Residual confounding is possible. Conclusion: Among patients with AF, apixaban use was associated with lower risk for GIB and similar rates of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, ICH, and all-cause mortality compared with dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban. This finding was consistent for patients aged 80 years or older and those with chronic kidney disease, who are often underrepresented in clinical trials. Primary Funding Source: None.

Bias Against the Willfully Unvaccinated

Associations of Atrial Fibrillation After Noncardiac Surgery With Stroke, Subsequent Arrhythmia, and Death: A Cohort Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 175, No 8

Background: Postoperative atrial fibrillation (AF) after noncardiac surgery confers increased risks for ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA). How outcomes for postoperative AF after noncardiac surgery compare with those for AF occurring outside of the operative setting is unknown. Objective: To compare the risks for ischemic stroke or TIA and other outcomes in patients with postoperative AF versus those with incident AF not associated with surgery. Design: Cohort study. Setting: Olmsted County, Minnesota. Participants: Patients with incident AF between 2000 and 2013. Measurements: Patients were categorized as having AF occurring within 30 days of a noncardiac surgery (postoperative AF) or having AF unrelated to surgery (nonoperative AF). Results: Of 4231 patients with incident AF, 550 (13%) had postoperative AF as their first-ever documented AF presentation. Over a mean follow-up of 6.3 years, 486 patients had an ischemic stroke or TIA and 2462 had subsequent AF; a total of 2565 deaths occurred. The risk for stroke or TIA was similar between those with postoperative AF and nonoperative AF (absolute risk difference [ARD] at 5 years, 0.1% [95% CI, −2.9% to 3.1%]; hazard ratio [HR], 1.01 [CI, 0.77 to 1.32]). A lower risk for subsequent AF was seen for patients with postoperative AF (ARD at 5 years, −13.4% [CI, −17.8% to −9.0%]; HR, 0.68 [CI, 0.60 to 0.77]). Finally, no difference was seen for cardiovascular death or all-cause death between patients with postoperative AF and nonoperative AF. Limitation: The population consisted predominantly of White patients; caution should be used when extrapolating the results to more racially diverse populations. Conclusion: Postoperative AF after noncardiac surgery is associated with similar risk for thromboembolism compared with nonoperative AF. Our findings have potentially important implications for the early postsurgical and subsequent management of postoperative AF. Primary Funding Source: National Institute on Aging.

Epstein–Barr Viral Load Monitoring Strategy and the Risk for Posttransplant Lymphoproliferative Disease in Adult Liver Transplantation: A Cohort Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 176, No 2

Background: Primary infection with or reactivation of Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) can occur after liver transplant (LT) and can lead to posttransplant lymphoproliferative disease (PTLD). In pediatric LT, an EBV-DNA viral load (EBV VL) monitoring strategy, including the reduction of immunosuppression, has led to a lower incidence of PTLD. For adult LT recipients with less primary infection and more EBV reactivation, it is unknown whether this strategy is effective. Objective: To examine the effect of an EBV VL monitoring strategy on the incidence of PTLD after LT in adults. Design: Cohort study. Setting: Two university medical centers in the Netherlands. Patients: Adult recipients of first LT in Leiden between September 2003 and January 2017 with an EBV VL monitoring strategy formed the monitoring group (M1), recipients of first LT in Rotterdam between January 2003 and January 2017 without such a strategy formed the contemporary control group (C1), and those who had transplants in Leiden between September 1992 and September 2003 or Rotterdam between 1986 and January 2003 formed the historical control groups (M0 and C0, respectively). Measurements: Influence of EBV VL monitoring on incidence of PTLD. Results: After inverse probability of treatment weighting of the 4 groups to achieve a balance among the groups for important patient characteristics, differences within hospitals between the historical and recent era in cumulative incidences—expressed as the number of events per 1000 patients measured at 5-, 10-, and 15-year follow-up—showed fewer events in the contemporary era in both centers. This difference was considerably larger in the monitoring center, whereas the 95% CI included the null value of 0 for point estimates. Limitation: Retrospective, low statistical power, and incompletely balanced groups, and non-EBV PTLD cannot be prevented. Conclusion: Monitoring EBV VL may reduce PTLD incidence after LT in adults; larger studies are warranted. Primary Funding Source: None.

Pain, Analgesic Use, and Patient Satisfaction With Spinal Versus General Anesthesia for Hip Fracture Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 175, No 7

Background: The REGAIN (Regional versus General Anesthesia for Promoting Independence after Hip Fracture) trial found similar ambulation and survival at 60 days with spinal versus general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery. Trial outcomes evaluating pain, prescription analgesic use, and patient satisfaction have not yet been reported. Objective: To compare pain, analgesic use, and satisfaction after hip fracture surgery with spinal versus general anesthesia. Design: Preplanned secondary analysis of a pragmatic randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02507505) Setting: 46 U.S. and Canadian hospitals. Participants: Patients aged 50 years or older undergoing hip fracture surgery. Intervention: Spinal or general anesthesia. Measurements: Pain on postoperative days 1 through 3; 60-, 180-, and 365-day pain and prescription analgesic use; and satisfaction with care. Results: A total of 1600 patients were enrolled. The average age was 78 years, and 77% were women. A total of 73.5% (1050 of 1428) of patients reported severe pain during the first 24 hours after surgery. Worst pain over the first 24 hours after surgery was greater with spinal anesthesia (rated from 0 [no pain] to 10 [worst pain imaginable]; mean difference, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.12 to 0.68]). Pain did not differ across groups at other time points. Prescription analgesic use at 60 days occurred in 25% (141 of 563) and 18.8% (108 of 574) of patients assigned to spinal and general anesthesia, respectively (relative risk, 1.33 [CI, 1.06 to 1.65]). Satisfaction was similar across groups. Limitation: Missing outcome data and multiple outcomes assessed. Conclusion: Severe pain is common after hip fracture. Spinal anesthesia was associated with more pain in the first 24 hours after surgery and more prescription analgesic use at 60 days compared with general anesthesia. Primary Funding Source: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Apixaban Versus Rivaroxaban in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Valvular Heart Disease: A Population-Based Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 175, No 11

Background: Although apixaban and rivaroxaban are commonly used in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and valvular heart disease (VHD), there is limited evidence comparing the 2 drugs in these patients. Objective: To emulate a target trial of effectiveness and safety of apixaban and rivaroxaban in patients with AF and VHD. Design: New-user, active comparator, cohort study design. Setting: Commercial health insurance database from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2020. Patients: New users of apixaban or rivaroxaban who had a diagnosis of AF and VHD before initiation of anticoagulant therapy. Measurements: The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism. The primary safety outcome was a composite of gastrointestinal or intracranial bleeding. Cox proportional hazards regression with a robust variance estimator was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs. Results: When compared with rivaroxaban in a propensity score–matched cohort of 19 894 patients (9947 receiving each drug), apixaban was associated with a lower rate of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism (HR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.40 to 0.80]) and bleeding (HR, 0.51 [CI, 0.41 to 0.62]). The absolute reduction in the probability of stroke or systemic embolism with apixaban compared with rivaroxaban was 0.0026 within 6 months and 0.011 within 1 year of treatment initiation. The absolute reduction in the probability of bleeding events with apixaban compared with rivaroxaban was 0.012 within 6 months and 0.019 within 1 year of treatment initiation. Limitation: Short follow-up time and inability to ascertain some types of VHD. Conclusion: In this study of patients with AF and VHD, patients receiving apixaban had a lower risk for ischemic stroke or systemic embolism and for bleeding when compared with those receiving rivaroxaban. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.

Comparison of Patients Infected With Delta Versus Omicron COVID-19 Variants Presenting to Paris Emergency Departments: A Retrospective Cohort Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 175, No 6

Background: At the end of 2021, the B.1.1.529 SARS-CoV-2 variant (Omicron) wave superseded the B.1.617.2 variant (Delta) wave. Objective: To compare baseline characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection with the Delta variant versus the Omicron variant in the emergency department (ED). Design: Retrospective chart reviews. Setting: 13 adult EDs in academic hospitals in the Paris area from 29 November 2021 to 10 January 2022. Patients: Patients with a positive reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test result for SARS-CoV-2 and variant identification. Measurements: Main outcome measures were baseline clinical and biological characteristics at ED presentation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, and in-hospital mortality. Results: A total of 3728 patients had a positive RT-PCR test result for SARS-CoV-2 during the study period; 1716 patients who had a variant determination (818 Delta and 898 Omicron) were included. Median age was 58 years, and 49% were women. Patients infected with the Omicron variant were younger (54 vs. 62 years; difference, 8.0 years [95% CI, 4.6 to 11.4 years]), had a lower rate of obesity (8.0% vs. 12.5%; difference, 4.5 percentage points [CI, 1.5 to 7.5 percentage points]), were more vaccinated (65% vs. 39% for 1 dose and 22% vs. 11% for 3 doses), had a lower rate of dyspnea (26% vs. 50%; difference, 23.6 percentage points [CI, 19.0 to 28.2 percentage points]), and had a higher rate of discharge home from the ED (59% vs. 37%; difference, 21.9 percentage points [−26.5 to −17.1 percentage points]). Compared with Delta, Omicron infection was independently associated with a lower risk for ICU admission (adjusted difference, 11.4 percentage points [CI, 8.4 to 14.4 percentage points]), mechanical ventilation (adjusted difference, 3.6 percentage points [CI, 1.7 to 5.6 percentage points]), and in-hospital mortality (adjusted difference, 4.2 percentage points [CI, 2.0 to 6.5 percentage points]). Limitation: Patients with COVID-19 illness and no SARS-CoV-2 variant determination in the ED were excluded. Conclusion: Compared with the Delta variant, infection with the Omicron variant in patients in the ED had different clinical and biological patterns and was associated with better in-hospital outcomes, including higher survival. Primary Funding Source: None.

Adenoma Detection Rate and Risk for Interval Postcolonoscopy Colorectal Cancer in Fecal Immunochemical Test–Based Screening: A Population-Based Cohort Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 175, No 10

Background: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an essential quality indicator for endoscopists performing colonoscopies for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as it is associated with postcolonoscopy CRCs (PCCRCs). Currently, data on ADRs of endoscopists performing colonoscopies in fecal immunochemical testing (FIT)-based screening, the most common screening method, are scarce. Also, the association between the ADR and PCCRC has not been demonstrated in this setting. Objective: To evaluate the association between the ADR and PCCRC risk in colonoscopies done after a positive FIT result. Design: Population-based cohort. Setting: Dutch, FIT-based, CRC screening program. Participants: Patients undergoing colonoscopy, done by accredited endoscopists, after a positive FIT result. Measurements: Quality indicator performance and PCCRC incidence for colonoscopies in FIT-positive screenees were assessed. The PCCRCs were classified as interval, a cancer detected before recommended surveillance, or noninterval. The association between ADR and interval PCCRC was evaluated with a multivariable Cox regression model and PCCRC incidence was determined for different ADRs. Results: 362 endoscopists performed 116 360 colonoscopies with a median ADR of 67%. In total, 209 interval PCCRCs were identified. The ADR was associated with interval PCCRC, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92 to 0.97) per 1% increase in ADR. For every 1000 patients undergoing colonoscopy, the expected number of interval PCCRC diagnoses after 5 years was approximately 2 for endoscopists with ADRs of 70%, compared with more than 2.5, almost 3.5, and more than 4.5 for endoscopists with ADRs of 65%, 60%, and 55%, respectively. Limitation: The relative short duration of follow-up (median, 52 months) could be considered a limitation. Conclusion: The ADR of endoscopists is inversely associated with the risk for interval PCCRC in FIT-positive colonoscopies. Endoscopists performing colonoscopy in FIT-based screening should aim for markedly higher ADRs compared with primary colonoscopy. Primary Funding Source: None.