The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about medical knowledge.   **Question:** Please refer to the summary above to answer this question A cardiologist at another institution is trying to replicate the table in the abstract with a very similar study that he is conducting. After collecting data on changes in plaque volume, LDL-C levels, FEV1/FVC ratio, and ACQ scores from baseline to 12-month follow-up, he is curious if the changes in the aforementioned measurements are statistically significant. Which of the following is the most appropriate statistical method to compare the groups?" "Impact of pulmharkimab on asthma control and cardiovascular disease progression in patients with coronary artery disease and comorbid asthma Introduction: Active asthma has been found to be associated with a more than two-fold increase in the risk of myocardial infarction, even after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors. It has been suggested that the inflammatory mediators and accelerated atherosclerosis characterizing systemic inflammation may increase the risk of both asthma and cardiovascular disease. This study evaluated the efficacy of the novel IL-1 inhibitor pulmharkimab in improving asthma and cardiovascular disease progression. Methods: In this double-blind, randomized controlled trial, patients (N=1200) with a history of coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction in the past 2 years, and a diagnosis of comorbid adult-onset asthma were recruited from cardiology clinics at a large academic medical center in Philadelphia, PA. Patients who were immunocompromised or had a history of recurrent infections were excluded. Patients were subsequently randomly assigned a 12-month course of pulmharkimab 75 mg/day, pulmharkimab 150 mg/day, or a placebo, with each group containing 400 participants. All participants were included in analysis and analyzed in the groups to which they were randomized regardless of medication adherence. Variables measured included plaque volume, serum LDL-C levels, FEV1/FVC ratio, and Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) scores, which quantified the severity of asthma symptoms. Plaque volume was determined by ultrasound. Analyses were performed from baseline to month 12. Results: At baseline, participants in the two groups did not differ by age, gender, race, plaque volume, serum LDL-C levels, FEV1/FVC ratio, and ACQ scores (p > 0.05 for all). A total of 215 participants (18%) were lost to follow-up. At 12-month follow-up, the groups contained the following numbers of participants: Pulmharkimab 75 mg/d: 388 participants Pulmharkimab 150 mg/d: 202 participants Placebo: 395 participants Table 1: Association between pulmharkimab and both pulmonary and cardiovascular outcomes. Models were adjusted for sociodemographic variables and medical comorbidities. All outcome variables were approximately normally distributed. Pulmharkimab 75 mg/d, (Mean +/- 2 SE) Pulmharkimab 150 mg/d, (Mean +/- 2 SE) Placebo, (Mean +/- 2 SE) P-value Plaque volume (mm3), change from baseline 6.6 ± 2.8 1.2 ± 4.7 15.8 ± 2.9 < 0.01 LDL-C levels, change from baseline -9.4 ± 3.6 -11.2 ± 14.3 -8.4 ± 3.9 0.28 FEV1/FVC ratio, change from baseline 0.29 ± 2.21 0.34 ± 5.54 -0.22 ± 3.21 0.27 ACQ scores, change from baseline 0.31 ± 1.22 0.46 ± 3.25 0.12 ± 1.33 0.43 Conclusion: Pulmharkimab may be effective in reducing plaque volume but does not lead to improved asthma control in patients with a history of myocardial infarction and comorbid asthma. Source of funding: Southeast Institute for Advanced Lung and Cardiovascular Studies, American Center for Advancement of Cardiovascular Health"   (A) Pearson correlation analysis   (B) Chi-square test   (C) Analysis of variance   (D) Kaplan-Meier analysis
['(C) Analysis of variance <> answer', 'The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about medical knowledge. <> instruction', '(A) Pearson correlation analysis \n (B) Chi-square test \n (C) Analysis of variance \n (D) Kaplan-Meier analysis <> possible answers', '  Please refer to the summary above to answer this question\nA cardiologist at another institution is trying to replicate the table in the abstract with a very similar study that he is conducting. After collecting data on changes in plaque volume, LDL-C levels, FEV1/FVC ratio, and ACQ scores from baseline to 12-month follow-up, he is curious if the changes in the aforementioned measurements are statistically significant. Which of the following is the most appropriate statistical method to compare the groups?"\n"Impact of pulmharkimab on asthma control and cardiovascular disease progression in patients with coronary artery disease and comorbid asthma\nIntroduction:\nActive asthma has been found to be associated with a more than two-fold increase in the risk of myocardial infarction, even after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors. It has been suggested that the inflammatory mediators and accelerated atherosclerosis characterizing systemic inflammation may increase the risk of both asthma and cardiovascular disease. This study evaluated the efficacy of the novel IL-1 inhibitor pulmharkimab in improving asthma and cardiovascular disease progression.\nMethods:\nIn this double-blind, randomized controlled trial, patients (N=1200) with a history of coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction in the past 2 years, and a diagnosis of comorbid adult-onset asthma were recruited from cardiology clinics at a large academic medical center in Philadelphia, PA. Patients who were immunocompromised or had a history of recurrent infections were excluded.\nPatients were subsequently randomly assigned a 12-month course of pulmharkimab 75 mg/day, pulmharkimab 150 mg/day, or a placebo, with each group containing 400 participants. All participants were included in analysis and analyzed in the groups to which they were randomized regardless of medication adherence. Variables measured included plaque volume, serum LDL-C levels, FEV1/FVC ratio, and Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) scores, which quantified the severity of asthma symptoms. Plaque volume was determined by ultrasound.\nAnalyses were performed from baseline to month 12.\nResults:\nAt baseline, participants in the two groups did not differ by age, gender, race, plaque volume, serum LDL-C levels, FEV1/FVC ratio, and ACQ scores (p > 0.05 for all). A total of 215 participants (18%) were lost to follow-up. At 12-month follow-up, the groups contained the following numbers of participants:\nPulmharkimab 75 mg/d: 388 participants\nPulmharkimab 150 mg/d: 202 participants\nPlacebo: 395 participants\nTable 1: Association between pulmharkimab and both pulmonary and cardiovascular outcomes. Models were adjusted for sociodemographic variables and medical comorbidities. All outcome variables were approximately normally distributed.\nPulmharkimab 75 mg/d, (Mean +/- 2 SE) Pulmharkimab 150 mg/d, (Mean +/- 2 SE) Placebo, (Mean +/- 2 SE) P-value\nPlaque volume (mm3), change from baseline 6.6 ± 2.8 1.2 ± 4.7 15.8 ± 2.9 < 0.01\nLDL-C levels, change from baseline -9.4 ± 3.6 -11.2 ± 14.3 -8.4 ± 3.9 0.28\nFEV1/FVC ratio, change from baseline 0.29 ± 2.21 0.34 ± 5.54 -0.22 ± 3.21 0.27\nACQ scores, change from baseline 0.31 ± 1.22 0.46 ± 3.25 0.12 ± 1.33 0.43\nConclusion:\nPulmharkimab may be effective in reducing plaque volume but does not lead to improved asthma control in patients with a history of myocardial infarction and comorbid asthma.\nSource of funding: Southeast Institute for Advanced Lung and Cardiovascular Studies, American Center for Advancement of Cardiovascular Health" <> context@']