Cohort profile: AI-driven national Platform for CCTA for clinicaL and industriaL applicatiOns (APOLLO).

Coronary CT angiography (CCTA) is well established for the diagnostic evaluation and prognostication of coronary artery disease (CAD). The growing burden of CAD in Asia and the emergence of novel CT-based risk markers highlight the need for an automated platform that integrates patient data with CCTA findings to provide tailored, accurate cardiovascular risk assessments. This study aims to develop an artificial intelligence (AI)-driven platform for CAD assessment using CCTA in Singapore's multiethnic population. We will conduct a hybrid retrospective-prospective recruitment of patients who have undergone CCTA as part of the diagnostic workup for CAD, along with prospective follow-up for clinical endpoints. CCTA images will be analysed locally and by a core lab for coronary stenosis grading, Agatston scoring, epicardial adipose tissue evaluation and plaque analysis. The images and analyses will also be uploaded to an AI platform for deidentification, integration and automated reporting, generating precision AI toolkits for each parameter. CCTA images and baseline characteristics have been collected and verified for 4196 recruited patients, comprising 75% Chinese, 6% Malay, 10% Indian and 9% from other ethnic groups. Among the participants, 41% are female, with a mean age of 55±11 years. Additionally, 41% have hypertension, 51% have dyslipidaemia, 15% have diabetes and 22% have a history of smoking. The cohort data have been used to develop four AI modules for training, testing and validation. During the development process, data preprocessing standardised the format, resolution and other relevant attributes of the images. We will conduct prospective follow-up on the cohort to track clinical endpoints, including cardiovascular events, hospitalisations and mortality. Additionally, we will monitor the long-term impact of the AI-driven platform on patient outcomes and healthcare delivery. NCT05509010.

Baskaran L ，Leng S ，Dutta U ，Teo L ，Yew MS ，Sia CH ，Chew NW ，Huang W ，Lee HK ，Vaughan R ，Ngiam KY ，Lu Z ，Wang X ，Tan EWP ，Cheng NZY ，Tan SY ，Chan MY ，Zhong L ，APOLLO investigators ... -  《BMJ Open》

Defining the optimum strategy for identifying adults and children with coeliac disease: systematic review and economic modelling.

Elwenspoek MM ，Thom H ，Sheppard AL ，Keeney E ，O'Donnell R ，Jackson J ，Roadevin C ，Dawson S ，Lane D ，Stubbs J ，Everitt H ，Watson JC ，Hay AD ，Gillett P ，Robins G ，Jones HE ，Mallett S ，Whiting PF ... -  《-》

Inflammatory risk and cardiovascular events in patients without obstructive coronary artery disease: the ORFAN multicentre, longitudinal cohort study.

Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is the first line investigation for chest pain, and it is used to guide revascularisation. However, the widespread adoption of CCTA has revealed a large group of individuals without obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), with unclear prognosis and management. Measurement of coronary inflammation from CCTA using the perivascular fat attenuation index (FAI) Score could enable cardiovascular risk prediction and guide the management of individuals without obstructive CAD. The Oxford Risk Factors And Non-invasive imaging (ORFAN) study aimed to evaluate the risk profile and event rates among patients undergoing CCTA as part of routine clinical care in the UK National Health Service (NHS); to test the hypothesis that coronary arterial inflammation drives cardiac mortality or major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients with or without CAD; and to externally validate the performance of the previously trained artificial intelligence (AI)-Risk prognostic algorithm and the related AI-Risk classification system in a UK population. This multicentre, longitudinal cohort study included 40 091 consecutive patients undergoing clinically indicated CCTA in eight UK hospitals, who were followed up for MACE (ie, myocardial infarction, new onset heart failure, or cardiac death) for a median of 2·7 years (IQR 1·4-5·3). The prognostic value of FAI Score in the presence and absence of obstructive CAD was evaluated in 3393 consecutive patients from the two hospitals with the longest follow-up (7·7 years [6·4-9·1]). An AI-enhanced cardiac risk prediction algorithm, which integrates FAI Score, coronary plaque metrics, and clinical risk factors, was then evaluated in this population. In the 2·7 year median follow-up period, patients without obstructive CAD (32 533 [81·1%] of 40 091) accounted for 2857 (66·3%) of the 4307 total MACE and 1118 (63·7%) of the 1754 total cardiac deaths in the whole of Cohort A. Increased FAI Score in all the three coronary arteries had an additive impact on the risk for cardiac mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 29·8 [95% CI 13·9-63·9], p<0·001) or MACE (12·6 [8·5-18·6], p<0·001) comparing three vessels with an FAI Score in the top versus bottom quartile for each artery. FAI Score in any coronary artery predicted cardiac mortality and MACE independently from cardiovascular risk factors and the presence or extent of CAD. The AI-Risk classification was positively associated with cardiac mortality (6·75 [5·17-8·82], p<0·001, for very high risk vs low or medium risk) and MACE (4·68 [3·93-5·57], p<0·001 for very high risk vs low or medium risk). Finally, the AI-Risk model was well calibrated against true events. The FAI Score captures inflammatory risk beyond the current clinical risk stratification and CCTA interpretation, particularly among patients without obstructive CAD. The AI-Risk integrates this information in a prognostic algorithm, which could be used as an alternative to traditional risk factor-based risk calculators. British Heart Foundation, NHS-AI award, Innovate UK, National Institute for Health and Care Research, and the Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.

Chan K ，Wahome E ，Tsiachristas A ，Antonopoulos AS ，Patel P ，Lyasheva M ，Kingham L ，West H ，Oikonomou EK ，Volpe L ，Mavrogiannis MC ，Nicol E ，Mittal TK ，Halborg T ，Kotronias RA ，Adlam D ，Modi B ，Rodrigues J ，Screaton N ，Kardos A ，Greenwood JP ，Sabharwal N ，De Maria GL ，Munir S ，McAlindon E ，Sohan Y ，Tomlins P ，Siddique M ，Kelion A ，Shirodaria C ，Pugliese F ，Petersen SE ，Blankstein R ，Desai M ，Gersh BJ ，Achenbach S ，Libby P ，Neubauer S ，Channon KM ，Deanfield J ，Antoniades C ，ORFAN Consortium ... -  《-》

The effectiveness of school-based family asthma educational programs on the quality of life and number of asthma exacerbations of children aged five to 18 years diagnosed with asthma: a systematic review protocol.

Walter H ，Sadeque-Iqbal F ，Ulysse R ，Castillo D ，Fitzpatrick A ，Singleton J ... -  《-》

Falls prevention interventions for community-dwelling older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits, harms, and patient values and preferences.

About 20-30% of older adults (≥ 65 years old) experience one or more falls each year, and falls are associated with substantial burden to the health care system, individuals, and families from resulting injuries, fractures, and reduced functioning and quality of life. Many interventions for preventing falls have been studied, and their effectiveness, factors relevant to their implementation, and patient preferences may determine which interventions to use in primary care. The aim of this set of reviews was to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (task force) on fall prevention interventions. We undertook three systematic reviews to address questions about the following: (i) the benefits and harms of interventions, (ii) how patients weigh the potential outcomes (outcome valuation), and (iii) patient preferences for different types of interventions, and their attributes, shown to offer benefit (intervention preferences). We searched four databases for benefits and harms (MEDLINE, Embase, AgeLine, CENTRAL, to August 25, 2023) and three for outcome valuation and intervention preferences (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, to June 9, 2023). For benefits and harms, we relied heavily on a previous review for studies published until 2016. We also searched trial registries, references of included studies, and recent reviews. Two reviewers independently screened studies. The population of interest was community-dwelling adults ≥ 65 years old. We did not limit eligibility by participant fall history. The task force rated several outcomes, decided on their eligibility, and provided input on the effect thresholds to apply for each outcome (fallers, falls, injurious fallers, fractures, hip fractures, functional status, health-related quality of life, long-term care admissions, adverse effects, serious adverse effects). For benefits and harms, we included a broad range of non-pharmacological interventions relevant to primary care. Although usual care was the main comparator of interest, we included studies comparing interventions head-to-head and conducted a network meta-analysis (NMAs) for each outcome, enabling analysis of interventions lacking direct comparisons to usual care. For benefits and harms, we included randomized controlled trials with a minimum 3-month follow-up and reporting on one of our fall outcomes (fallers, falls, injurious fallers); for the other questions, we preferred quantitative data but considered qualitative findings to fill gaps in evidence. No date limits were applied for benefits and harms, whereas for outcome valuation and intervention preferences we included studies published in 2000 or later. All data were extracted by one trained reviewer and verified for accuracy and completeness. For benefits and harms, we relied on the previous review team's risk-of-bias assessments for benefit outcomes, but otherwise, two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias (within and across study). For the other questions, one reviewer verified another's assessments. Consensus was used, with adjudication by a lead author when necessary. A coding framework, modified from the ProFANE taxonomy, classified interventions and their attributes (e.g., supervision, delivery format, duration/intensity). For benefit outcomes, we employed random-effects NMA using a frequentist approach and a consistency model. Transitivity and coherence were assessed using meta-regressions and global and local coherence tests, as well as through graphical display and descriptive data on the composition of the nodes with respect to major pre-planned effect modifiers. We assessed heterogeneity using prediction intervals. For intervention-related adverse effects, we pooled proportions except for vitamin D for which we considered data in the control groups and undertook random-effects pairwise meta-analysis using a relative risk (any adverse effects) or risk difference (serious adverse effects). For outcome valuation, we pooled disutilities (representing the impact of a negative event, e.g. fall, on one's usual quality of life, with 0 = no impact and 1 = death and ~ 0.05 indicating important disutility) from the EQ-5D utility measurement using the inverse variance method and a random-effects model and explored heterogeneity. When studies only reported other data, we compared the findings with our main analysis. For intervention preferences, we used a coding schema identifying whether there were strong, clear, no, or variable preferences within, and then across, studies. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using CINeMA for benefit outcomes and GRADE for all other outcomes. A total of 290 studies were included across the reviews, with two studies included in multiple questions. For benefits and harms, we included 219 trials reporting on 167,864 participants and created 59 interventions (nodes). Transitivity and coherence were assessed as adequate. Across eight NMAs, the number of contributing trials ranged between 19 and 173, and the number of interventions ranged from 19 to 57. Approximately, half of the interventions in each network had at least low certainty for benefit. The fallers outcome had the highest number of interventions with moderate certainty for benefit (18/57). For the non-fall outcomes (fractures, hip fracture, long-term care [LTC] admission, functional status, health-related quality of life), many interventions had very low certainty evidence, often from lack of data. We prioritized findings from 21 interventions where there was moderate certainty for at least some benefit. Fourteen of these had a focus on exercise, the majority being supervised (for > 2 sessions) and of long duration (> 3 months), and with balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions generally having the most outcomes with at least low certainty for benefit. None of the interventions having moderate certainty evidence focused on walking. Whole-body vibration or home-hazard assessment (HHA) plus exercise provided to everyone showed moderate certainty for some benefit. No multifactorial intervention alone showed moderate certainty for any benefit. Six interventions only had very-low certainty evidence for the benefit outcomes. Two interventions had moderate certainty of harmful effects for at least one benefit outcome, though the populations across studies were at high risk for falls. Vitamin D and most single-component exercise interventions are probably associated with minimal adverse effects. Some uncertainty exists about possible adverse effects from other interventions. For outcome valuation, we included 44 studies of which 34 reported EQ-5D disutilities. Admission to long-term care had the highest disutility (1.0), but the evidence was rated as low certainty. Both fall-related hip (moderate certainty) and non-hip (low certainty) fracture may result in substantial disutility (0.53 and 0.57) in the first 3 months after injury. Disutility for both hip and non-hip fractures is probably lower 12 months after injury (0.16 and 0.19, with high and moderate certainty, respectively) compared to within the first 3 months. No study measured the disutility of an injurious fall. Fractures are probably more important than either falls (0.09 over 12 months) or functional status (0.12). Functional status may be somewhat more important than falls. For intervention preferences, 29 studies (9 qualitative) reported on 17 comparisons among single-component interventions showing benefit. Exercise interventions focusing on balance and/or resistance training appear to be clearly preferred over Tai Chi and other forms of exercise (e.g., yoga, aerobic). For exercise programs in general, there is probably variability among people in whether they prefer group or individual delivery, though there was high certainty that individual was preferred over group delivery of balance/resistance programs. Balance/resistance exercise may be preferred over education, though the evidence was low certainty. There was low certainty for a slight preference for education over cognitive-behavioral therapy, and group education may be preferred over individual education. To prevent falls among community-dwelling older adults, evidence is most certain for benefit, at least over 1-2 years, from supervised, long-duration balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions, whole-body vibration, high-intensity/dose education or cognitive-behavioral therapy, and interventions of comprehensive multifactorial assessment with targeted treatment plus HHA, HHA plus exercise, or education provided to everyone. Adding other interventions to exercise does not appear to substantially increase benefits. Overall, effects appear most applicable to those with elevated fall risk. Choice among effective interventions that are available may best depend on individual patient preferences, though when implementing new balance/resistance programs delivering individual over group sessions when feasible may be most acceptable. Data on more patient-important outcomes including fall-related fractures and adverse effects would be beneficial, as would studies focusing on equity-deserving populations and on programs delivered virtually. Not registered.

Pillay J ，Gaudet LA ，Saba S ，Vandermeer B ，Ashiq AR ，Wingert A ，Hartling L ... -  《Systematic Reviews》