<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Hlatky, M.A.</title>
    <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/12829/</link>
    <description>List of Publications</description>
    <language>en</language>
    
    <item>
      <title>Strengthening the reporting of genetic risk prediction studies (GRIPS): Explanation and elaboration (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/31282/</link>
      <pubDate>2011-09-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>The rapid and continuing progress in gene discovery for complex diseases is fuelling interest in the potential application of genetic risk models for clinical and public health practice. The number of studies assessing the predictive ability is steadily increasing, but they vary widely in completeness of reporting and apparent quality. Transparent reporting of the strengths and weaknesses of these studies is important to facilitate the accumulation of evidence on genetic risk prediction. A multidisciplinary workshop sponsored by the Human Genome Epidemiology Network developed a checklist of 25 items recommended for strengthening the reporting of Genetic RIsk Prediction Studies (GRIPS), building on the principles established by prior reporting guidelines. These recommendations aim to enhance the transparency, quality and completeness of study reporting and thereby to improve the synthesis and application of information from multiple studies that might differ in design, conduct or analysis. © 2011 The Authors. European Journal of Clinical Investigation </description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Strengthening the reporting of Genetic RIsk Prediction Studies (GRIPS): Explanation and elaboration (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/26546/</link>
      <pubDate>2011-08-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description></description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Strengthening the reporting of genetic risk prediction studies (GRIPS): Explanation and elaboration (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/25850/</link>
      <pubDate>2011-05-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>The rapid and continuing progress in gene discovery for complex diseases is fueling interest in the potential application of genetic risk models for clinical and public health practice. The number of studies assessing the predictive ability is steadily increasing, but they vary widely in completeness of reporting and apparent quality. Transparent reporting of the strengths and weaknesses of these studies is important to facilitate the accumulation of evidence on genetic risk prediction. A multidisciplinary workshop sponsored by the Human Genome Epidemiology Network developed a checklist of 25 items recommended for strengthening the reporting of Genetic RIsk Prediction Studies (GRIPS), building on the principles established by previous reporting guidelines. These recommendations aim to enhance the transparency, quality and completeness of study reporting, and thereby to improve the synthesis and application of information from multiple studies that might differ in design, conduct or analysis. </description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Strengthening the reporting of genetic risk prediction studies (GRIPS): Explanation and elaboration (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/25512/</link>
      <pubDate>2011-04-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>The rapid and continuing progress in gene discovery for complex diseases is fuelling interest in the potential application of genetic risk models for clinical and public health practice. The number of studies assessing the predictive ability is steadily increasing, but they vary widely in completeness of reporting and apparent quality. Transparent reporting of the strengths and weaknesses of these studies is important to facilitate the accumulation of evidence on genetic risk prediction. A multidisciplinary workshop sponsored by the Human Genome Epidemiology Network developed a checklist of 25 items recommended for strengthening the reporting of Genetic RIsk Prediction Studies (GRIPS), building on the principles established by prior reporting guidelines. These recommendations aim to enhance the transparency, quality and completeness of study reporting, and thereby to improve the synthesis and application of information from multiple studies that might differ in design, conduct or analysis. </description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>The effect of internal thoracic artery grafts on long-term clinical outcomes after coronary bypass surgery (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/22778/</link>
      <pubDate>2010-01-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Objectives: We sought to compare long-term outcomes after coronary bypass surgery with and without an internal thoracic artery graft. Methods: We analyzed clinical outcomes over a median follow-up of 6.7 years among 3,087 patients who received coronary bypass surgery as participants in one of 8 clinical trials comparing surgical intervention with angioplasty. We used 2 statistical methods (covariate adjustment and propensity score matching) to adjust for the nonrandomized selection of internal thoracic artery grafts. Results: Internal thoracic artery grafting was associated with lower mortality, with hazard ratios of 0.77 (confidence interval, 0.62-0.97; P = .02) for covariate adjustment and 0.77 (confidence interval, 0.57-1.05; P = .10) for propensity score matching. The composite end point of death or myocardial infarction was reduced to a similar extent, with hazard ratios of 0.83 (confidence interval, 0.69-1.00; P = .05) for covariate adjustment to 0.78 (confidence interval, 0.61-1.00; P = .05) for propensity score matching. There was a trend toward less angina at 1 year, with odds ratios of 0.81 (confidence interval, 0.61-1.09; P = .16) in the covariate-adjusted model and 0.81 (confidence interval, 0.55-1.19; P = .28) in the propensity score-adjusted model. Conclusions: Use of an internal thoracic artery graft during coronary bypass surgery seems to improve long-term clinical outcomes.</description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Coronary artery bypass surgery compared with percutaneous coronary interventions for multivessel disease: a collaborative analysis of individual patient data from ten randomised trials (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/16232/</link>
      <pubDate>2009-04-03T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Background: Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are alternative treatments for multivessel coronary disease. Although the procedures have been compared in several randomised trials, their long-term effects on mortality in key clinical subgroups are uncertain. We undertook a collaborative analysis of data from randomised trials to assess whether the effects of the procedures on mortality are modified by patient characteristics. Methods: We pooled individual patient data from ten randomised trials to compare the effectiveness of CABG with PCI according to patients' baseline clinical characteristics. We used stratified, random effects Cox proportional hazards models to test the effect on all-cause mortality of randomised treatment assignment and its interaction with clinical characteristics. All analyses were by intention to treat. Findings: Ten participating trials provided data on 7812 patients. PCI was done with balloon angioplasty in six trials and with bare-metal stents in four trials. Over a median follow-up of 5·9 years (IQR 5·0-10·0), 575 (15%) of 3889 patients assigned to CABG died compared with 628 (16%) of 3923 patients assigned to PCI (hazard ratio [HR] 0·91, 95% CI 0·82-1·02; p=0·12). In patients with diabetes (CABG, n=615; PCI, n=618), mortality was substantially lower in the CABG group than in the PCI group (HR 0·70, 0·56-0·87); however, mortality was similar between groups in patients without diabetes (HR 0·98, 0·86-1·12; p=0·014 for interaction). Patient age modified the effect of treatment on mortality, with hazard ratios of 1·25 (0·94-1·66) in patients younger than 55 years, 0·90 (0·75-1·09) in patients aged 55-64 years, and 0·82 (0·70-0·97) in patients 65 years and older (p=0·002 for interaction). Treatment effect was not modified by the number of diseased vessels or other baseline characteristics. Interpretation: Long-term mortality is similar after CABG and PCI in most patient subgroups with multivessel coronary artery disease, so choice of treatment should depend on patient preferences for other outcomes. CABG might be a better option for patients with diabetes and patients aged 65 years or older because we found mortality to be lower in these subgroups. Funding: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.</description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Cost effectiveness of thrombolytic therapy with tissue plasminogen activator as compared with streptokinase for acute myocardial infarction (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/5489/</link>
      <pubDate>1995-01-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>BACKGROUND. Patients with acute myocardial infarction who were treated with accelerated tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) (given over a period of 1 1/2 hours rather than the conventional 3 hours, and with two thirds of the dose given in the first 30 minutes) had a 30-day mortality that was 15 percent lower than that of patients treated with streptokinase in the Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) study. This was equivalent to an absolute decrease of 1 percent in 30-day mortality. We sought to assess whether the use of t-PA, as compared with streptokinase, is cost effective. METHODS. Our primary, or base-case, analysis of cost effectiveness used data from the GUSTO study and life expectancy projected on the basis of the records of survivors of myocardial infarction in the Duke Cardiovascular Disease Database. In the primary analysis, we assumed that there were no additional treatment costs due to the use of t-PA after the first year and that the comparative survival benefit of t-PA was still evident one year after enrollment. RESULTS. One year after enrollment, patients who received t-PA had both higher costs ($2,845) and a higher survival rate (an increase of 1.1 percent, or 11 per 1000 patients treated) than streptokinase-treated patients. On the basis of the projected life expectancy of each treatment group, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio--with both future costs and benefits discounted at 5 percent per year--was$32,678 per year of life saved. The use of t-PA was least cost effective in younger patients and most cost effective in older patients. At all ages, the use of t-PA in patients with anterior infarctions yielded more favorable cost-effectiveness values. In our secondary analyses, the cost-effectiveness values were most sensitive to a lowering of the projected long-term survival benefits of t-PA and to moderate or greater increases in the projected medical costs for patients in the t-PA group after the first year. In contrast, our results were not sensitive to even very unfavorable assumptions about the additional costs associated with the higher rate of disabling stroke that was noted in patients treated with t-PA in the GUSTO study. CONCLUSIONS. The cost effectiveness of treatment with accelerated t-PA rather than streptokinase compares favorably with that of other therapies whose added medical benefit for dollars spent is judged by society to be worthwhile.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>