Search Results for ""
- ACP Online (7510)
- Annals of Internal Medicine (6745)
- IM Matters (4542)
- ACP Hospitalist (2332)
- Annals of Internal Medicine: Clinical Cases (500)
- ACP Store (254)
Displaying 891 - 900 of 7510 in ACP Online
Displaying 891 - 900 of 6745 in Annals of Internal Medicine
These Annals of Internal Medicine results only contain recent articles.
- Visit annals.org to search all content back to 1927.
- View Annals of Internal Medicine CME by topic here.
Perioperative Safety and Early Patient and Device Outcomes Among Subcutaneous Versus Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantations: A Randomized, Multicenter Trial: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 175, No 12
Background: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) improve survival in patients at risk for cardiac arrest, but are associated with intravascular lead-related complications. The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD), with no intravascular components, was developed to minimize lead-related complications. Objective: To assess key ICD performance measures related to delivery of ICD therapy, including inappropriate ICD shocks (delivered in absence of life-threatening arrhythmia) and failed ICD shocks (which did not terminate ventricular arrhythmia). Design: Randomized, multicenter trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02881255) Setting: The ATLAS trial. Patients: 544 eligible patients (141 female) with a primary or secondary prevention indication for an ICD who were younger than age 60 years, had a cardiogenetic phenotype, or had prespecified risk factors for lead complications were electrocardiographically screened and 503 randomly assigned to S-ICD (251 patients) or transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) (252 patients). Mean follow-up was 2.5 years (SD, 1.1). Mean age was 49.0 years (SD, 11.5). Measurements: The primary outcome was perioperative major lead-related complications. Results: There was a statistically significant reduction in perioperative, lead-related complications, which occurred in 1 patient (0.4%) with an S-ICD and in 12 patients (4.8%) with TV-ICD (−4.4%; 95% CI, −6.9 to −1.9; P = 0.001). There was a trend for more inappropriate shocks with the S-ICD (hazard ratio [HR], 2.37; 95% CI, 0.98 to 5.77), but no increase in failed appropriate ICD shocks (HR, 0.61 (0.15 to 2.57). Patients in the S-ICD group had more ICD site pain, measured on a 10-point numeric rating scale, on the day of implant (4.2 ± 2.8 vs. 2.9 ± 2.2; P < 0.001) and 1 month later (1.3 ± 1.8 vs. 0.9 ± 1.5; P = 0.035). Limitation: At present, the ATLAS trial is underpowered to detect differences in clinical shock outcomes; however, extended follow-up is ongoing. Conclusion: The S-ICD reduces perioperative, lead-related complications without significantly compromising the effectiveness of ICD shocks, but with more early postoperative pain and a trend for more inappropriate shocks. Primary Funding Source: Boston Scientific.
Effectiveness of an Intervention to Improve Decision Making for Older Patients With Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 176, No 1
Background: Older patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) face difficult decisions about managing kidney failure, frequently experiencing decisional conflict, regret, and treatment misaligned with preferences. Objective: To assess whether a decision aid about kidney replacement therapy improved decisional quality compared with usual care. Design: Multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03522740) Setting: 8 outpatient nephrology clinics associated with 4 U.S. centers. Participants: English-fluent patients, 70 years and older with nondialysis CKD stages 4 to 5 recruited from 2018 to 2020. Intervention: DART (Decision-Aid for Renal Therapy) is an interactive, web-based decision aid for older adults with CKD. Both groups received written education about treatments. Measurements: Change in the decisional conflict scale (DCS) score from baseline to 3, 6, 12, and 18 months. Secondary outcomes included change in prognostic and treatment knowledge and change in uncertainty. Results: Among 400 participants, 363 were randomly assigned: 180 to usual care, 183 to DART. Decisional quality improved with DART with mean DCS declining compared with control (mean difference, −8.5 [95% CI, −12.0 to −5.0]; P < 0.001), with similar findings at 6 months, attenuating thereafter. At 3 months, knowledge improved with DART versus usual care (mean difference, 7.2 [CI, 3.7 to 10.7]; P < 0.001); similar findings at 6 months were modestly attenuated at 18 months (mean difference, 5.9 [CI, 1.4 to 10.3]; P = 0.010). Treatment preferences changed from 58% “unsure” at baseline to 28%, 20%, 23%, and 14% at 3, 6, 12, and 18 months, respectively, with DART, versus 51% to 38%, 35%, 32%, and 18% with usual care. Limitation: Latinx patients were underrepresented. Conclusion: DART improved decision quality and clarified treatment preferences among older adults with advanced CKD for 6 months after the DART intervention. Primary Funding Source: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).
Assessing Heterogeneity of Treatment Effect in Real-World Data
Increasing availability of real-world data (RWD) generated from patient care enables the generation of evidence to inform clinical decisions for subpopulations of patients and perhaps even individuals. There is growing opportunity to identify important heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) in these subgroups. Thus, HTE is relevant to all with interest in patients' responses to interventions, including regulators who must make decisions about products when signals of harms arise postapproval and payers who make coverage decisions based on expected net benefit to their beneficiaries. Prior work discussed HTE in randomized studies. Here, we address methodological considerations when investigating HTE in observational studies. We propose 4 primary goals of HTE analyses and the corresponding approaches in the context of RWD: to confirm subgroup effects, to describe the magnitude of HTE, to discover clinically important subgroups, and to predict individual effects. We discuss other possible goals including exploring prognostic score– and propensity score–based treatment effects, and testing the transportability of trial results to populations different from trial participants. Finally, we outline methodological needs for enhancing real-world HTE analysis.
Efficacy and Safety of Ensovibep for Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Randomized Controlled Trial: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 175, No 9
Background: Ensovibep (MP0420) is a designed ankyrin repeat protein, a novel class of engineered proteins, under investigation as a treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Objective: To investigate if ensovibep, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care, improves clinical outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with standard care alone. Design: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04501978) Setting: Multinational, multicenter trial. Participants: Adults hospitalized with COVID-19. Intervention: Intravenous ensovibep, 600 mg, or placebo. Measurements: Ensovibep was assessed for early futility on the basis of pulmonary ordinal scores at day 5. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery through day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home or place of usual residence after hospital discharge. A composite safety outcome that included death, serious adverse events, end-organ disease, and serious infections was assessed through day 90. Results: An independent data and safety monitoring board recommended that enrollment be halted for early futility after 485 patients were randomly assigned and received an infusion of ensovibep (n = 247) or placebo (n = 238). The odds ratio (OR) for a more favorable pulmonary outcome in the ensovibep (vs. placebo) group at day 5 was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.30; P = 0.68; OR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The 90-day cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 82% for ensovibep and 80% for placebo (subhazard ratio [sHR], 1.06 [CI, 0.88 to 1.28]; sHR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The primary composite safety outcome at day 90 occurred in 78 ensovibep participants (32%) and 70 placebo participants (29%) (HR, 1.07 [CI, 0.77 to 1.47]; HR < 1 would favor ensovibep). Limitation: The trial was prematurely stopped because of futility, limiting power for the primary outcome. Conclusion: Compared with placebo, ensovibep did not improve clinical outcomes for hospitalized participants with COVID-19 receiving standard care, including remdesivir; no safety concerns were identified. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.
The Fall of the Nation's First Gender-Affirming Surgery Clinic
Johns Hopkins Hospital established the first gender-affirming surgery (GAS) clinic in the United States in 1966. Operating for more than 13 years, the clinic was abruptly closed in 1979. According to the hospital, the decision was made in response to objective evidence claiming that GAS was ineffective. However, this evidence directly contradicted many contemporaneous studies and faced immediate criticism from the scientific community. Despite this resistance, it took the hospital nearly 40 years to resume performing GAS. Scientific evidence—imbued in scandal, bias, and moralism—was instrumentalized to serve broader institutional interests. The burgeoning field of plastic surgery tethered and then untethered GAS from its auspices in response to poor technical outcomes and transphobia. No longer serving surgeons' interests, the clinic was marginalized to “barely minimal facilities” in 1974, five years before GAS was formally banned. Over the next 5 years, the clinic co-inhabited space with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Simultaneously, the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology navigated scandals related to reproductive technology (namely, the Dalkon Shield [A.H. Robins] controversy) until the clinic space was demolished in 1979. The study that informed the GAS ban was preferentially funded in keeping with the political economy of biomedical research. This article presents a spatial argument for how the closure of the nation's first GAS clinic was not based in empirical data alone but was manipulated to fuel political and institutional agendas.