Search

Objectives: We undertook time-stratified analyses of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in the US to assess time trends (1999-2020) in the associations of blood lead (BL) with blood pressure, mortality, the BL-associated population attributable fraction (PAF)., Methods: Vital status of participants, 20-79 years old at enrolment, was ascertained via the National Death Index. Regressions, mediation analyses and PAF were multivariable adjusted and standardized to 2020 US Census data., Results: In time-stratified analyses, BL decreased from 1.76 μg/dl in 1999-2004 to 0.93 μg/dl in 2017-2020, while the proportion of individuals with BL < 1 μg/dl increased from 19.2% to 63.0%. Total mortality was unrelated to BL (hazard ratio (HR) for a fourfold BL increment: 1.05 [95% confidence interval, CI: 0.93-1.17]). The HR for cardiovascular death was 1.44 (1.01-2.07) in the 1999-2000 cycle, but lost significance thereafter. BL was directly related to cardiovascular mortality, whereas the indirect BL pathway via BP was not significant. Low socioeconomic status (SES) was directly related to BL and cardiovascular mortality, but the indirect SES pathway via BL lost significance in 2007-2010. From 1999-2004 to 2017-2020, cardiovascular PAF decreased ( P  < 0.001) from 7.80% (0.17-14.4%) to 2.50% (0.05-4.68%) and number of lead-attributable cardiovascular deaths from 53 878 (1167-99 253) to 7539 (160-14 108)., Conclusion: Due to implementation of strict environmental policies, lead exposure is no longer associated with total mortality, and the mildly increased cardiovascular mortality is not associated with blood lead via blood pressure in the United States., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), occurs in ∼1 to 2 individuals per 1000 each year, corresponding to ∼300 000 to 600 000 events in the United States annually., Objective: These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) intend to support patients, clinicians, and others in decisions about treatment of VTE., Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and adult patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment., Results: The panel agreed on 28 recommendations for the initial management of VTE, primary treatment, secondary prevention, and treatment of recurrent VTE events., Conclusions: Strong recommendations include the use of thrombolytic therapy for patients with PE and hemodynamic compromise, use of an international normalized ratio (INR) range of 2.0 to 3.0 over a lower INR range for patients with VTE who use a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) for secondary prevention, and use of indefinite anticoagulation for patients with recurrent unprovoked VTE. Conditional recommendations include the preference for home treatment over hospital-based treatment for uncomplicated DVT and PE at low risk for complications and a preference for direct oral anticoagulants over VKA for primary treatment of VTE.

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) facilitate the outpatient treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, the pivotal trials of DOACs have not reported outcomes separately for patients managed either as outpatients or in the hospital. We performed a subgroup analysis of the Hokusai-VTE study comparing efficacy and safety of edoxaban with warfarin in 8,292 patients with acute VTE. Patients received initial therapy with open-label enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin for ≥5 days in the hospital or as an outpatient at the discretion of the treating physician. Edoxaban or warfarin was then given for 3 to 12 months. The primary efficacy outcome was the cumulative incidence of symptomatic recurrent VTE at 12 months. The principal safety outcome was the incidence of clinically relevant bleeding (composite of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding). Of the 5,223 consecutively enrolled patients with recorded hospital status and length of stay, 1,414 patients (27.1%) were managed as outpatients and 3,809 were managed in hospital. Among the outpatients, initial presentation was symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) in 1,183 patients (83.7%) and pulmonary embolism (PE) in 231 patients (16.3%). Among the outpatients with DVT, recurrent VTE occurred in 18 (3.0%) given edoxaban and in 21 (3.6%) given warfarin (risk difference: −0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −2.6 to 1.4). The principal safety outcome in outpatients occurred in 46 edoxaban patients (7.7%) and in 48 warfarin patients (8.3%; risk difference: −0.59, 95% CI: −3.7 to 2.5). Most outpatients had symptomatic DVT at presentation. In these patients, initial heparin followed by edoxaban had similar efficacy and safety to standard therapy with heparin and warfarin., Competing Interests: Declaration of Interests: Dr. Raskob reports personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo and Itreas during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Isis Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Pfizer and Portola outside the submitted work. Dr. Ageno reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo and Stago, and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer and Ono, outside the submitted work. Dr. Cohen reports grants from Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer; and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Portola, Sanofi, and XO1 outside the submitted work. Dr. Chen is an employee of Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. Dr. Grosso and Dr. Lin are employees of Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development. Dr. Mercuri is an employee of Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development and has a patent application pending for properties of edoxaban. Dr. Segers reports grants from Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development during the conduct of the study and grants from Isis Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr. Verhamme reports grants and personal fees from Daiichi-Sankyo Pharma Development during the conduct of the study and grants from Leo Pharma; grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi and ThromboGenics; and personal fees from Bayer outside the submitted work. Dr. Wells reports personal fees from Bayer and Daiichi Sankyo and grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer outside the submitted work. Ms. Winters was an employee of Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. Dr. Weitz reports personal fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Isis Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Pfizer and Portola outside the submitted work. Dr. Büller reports grants and personal fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Isis Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and Thrombogenics outside the submitted work. Dr. Medina, Dr., Brekelmans and Dr. Vanassche have nothing to disclose.