11 research outputs found

    The Changing Landscape for Stroke\ua0Prevention in AF: Findings From the GLORIA-AF Registry Phase 2

    Get PDF
    Background GLORIA-AF (Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) is a prospective, global registry program describing antithrombotic treatment patterns in patients with newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke. Phase 2 began when dabigatran, the first non\u2013vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC), became available. Objectives This study sought to describe phase 2 baseline data and compare these with the pre-NOAC era collected during phase 1. Methods During phase 2, 15,641 consenting patients were enrolled (November 2011 to December 2014); 15,092 were eligible. This pre-specified cross-sectional analysis describes eligible patients\u2019 baseline characteristics. Atrial fibrillation disease characteristics, medical outcomes, and concomitant diseases and medications were collected. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results Of the total patients, 45.5% were female; median age was 71 (interquartile range: 64, 78) years. Patients were from Europe (47.1%), North America (22.5%), Asia (20.3%), Latin America (6.0%), and the Middle East/Africa (4.0%). Most had high stroke risk (CHA2DS2-VASc [Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age  6575 years, Diabetes mellitus, previous Stroke, Vascular disease, Age 65 to 74 years, Sex category] score  652; 86.1%); 13.9% had moderate risk (CHA2DS2-VASc = 1). Overall, 79.9% received oral anticoagulants, of whom 47.6% received NOAC and 32.3% vitamin K antagonists (VKA); 12.1% received antiplatelet agents; 7.8% received no antithrombotic treatment. For comparison, the proportion of phase 1 patients (of N = 1,063 all eligible) prescribed VKA was 32.8%, acetylsalicylic acid 41.7%, and no therapy 20.2%. In Europe in phase 2, treatment with NOAC was more common than VKA (52.3% and 37.8%, respectively); 6.0% of patients received antiplatelet treatment; and 3.8% received no antithrombotic treatment. In North America, 52.1%, 26.2%, and 14.0% of patients received NOAC, VKA, and antiplatelet drugs, respectively; 7.5% received no antithrombotic treatment. NOAC use was less common in Asia (27.7%), where 27.5% of patients received VKA, 25.0% antiplatelet drugs, and 19.8% no antithrombotic treatment. Conclusions The baseline data from GLORIA-AF phase 2 demonstrate that in newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients, NOAC have been highly adopted into practice, becoming more frequently prescribed than VKA in Europe and North America. Worldwide, however, a large proportion of patients remain undertreated, particularly in Asia and North America. (Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation [GLORIA-AF]; NCT01468701

    História da colposcopia : do invento de Hinselmann aos ensaios clínicos atuais

    Get PDF
    A colposcopia, apresentada pelo médico alemão Hans Hinselmann, em 1925, permaneceu por vários anos estagnada, em vista das restrições alemães no pós-guerra. Na década de 60, a colposcopia retoma sua difusão principalmente pela necessidade de um exame complementar ao rastreamento citológico. Inúmeras nomenclaturas passaram a ser utilizadas, dificultando o estudo da técnica. Índices colposcópicos procuravam prever o resultado histológico através da pontuação dos achados colposcópicos, mas não tiveram reconhecimento e aplicação difundida. Numa tentativa de unificar a descrição colposcópica, a Federação Internacional de Patologia Cervical e Colposcopia apresentou, em 1975, 1990 e 2002 novas classificações colposcópicas internacionais. A colposcopia assumiu na atualidade um papel intermediário entre citologia e histologia. Entretanto, autores têm mostrado sensibilidade elevada da colposcopia, sugerindo que esta seja empregada como método de rastreio de patologia cervical, mas sua especificidade tem sido questionada. A nova nomenclatura de 2002 procura apresentar mais detalhadamente quais achadoscolposcópicos estão associados à normalidade, lesões de baixo grau, alto grau ou carcinoma, procurando melhorar a descrição colposcópica. Mas como será o desempenho da colposcopia com esta classificação? Até o momento, nenhum estudo científico abordou a nova Classificação Internacional, analisando-a em termos de sensibilidade, especificidade e valores preditivos dos achados colposcópicos

    História da colposcopia : do invento de Hinselmann aos ensaios clínicos atuais

    Get PDF
    A colposcopia, apresentada pelo médico alemão Hans Hinselmann, em 1925, permaneceu por vários anos estagnada, em vista das restrições alemães no pós-guerra. Na década de 60, a colposcopia retoma sua difusão principalmente pela necessidade de um exame complementar ao rastreamento citológico. Inúmeras nomenclaturas passaram a ser utilizadas, dificultando o estudo da técnica. Índices colposcópicos procuravam prever o resultado histológico através da pontuação dos achados colposcópicos, mas não tiveram reconhecimento e aplicação difundida. Numa tentativa de unificar a descrição colposcópica, a Federação Internacional de Patologia Cervical e Colposcopia apresentou, em 1975, 1990 e 2002 novas classificações colposcópicas internacionais. A colposcopia assumiu na atualidade um papel intermediário entre citologia e histologia. Entretanto, autores têm mostrado sensibilidade elevada da colposcopia, sugerindo que esta seja empregada como método de rastreio de patologia cervical, mas sua especificidade tem sido questionada. A nova nomenclatura de 2002 procura apresentar mais detalhadamente quais achadoscolposcópicos estão associados à normalidade, lesões de baixo grau, alto grau ou carcinoma, procurando melhorar a descrição colposcópica. Mas como será o desempenho da colposcopia com esta classificação? Até o momento, nenhum estudo científico abordou a nova Classificação Internacional, analisando-a em termos de sensibilidade, especificidade e valores preditivos dos achados colposcópicos

    When to replicate systematic reviews of interventions:Consensus checklist

    Get PDF
    For systematic reviews of interventions, replication is defined as the reproduction of findings of previous systematic reviews looking at the same effectiveness question either by: purposefully repeating the same methods to verify one or more empirical findings; or purposefully extending or narrowing the systematic review to a broader or more focused question (eg, across broader or more focused populations, intervention types, settings, outcomes, or study designs) Although systematic reviews are often used as the basis for informing policy and practice decisions, little evidence has been published so far on whether replication of systematic reviews is worthwhile Replication of existing systematic reviews cannot be done for all topics; any unnecessary or poorly conducted replication contributes to research waste The decision to replicate a systematic review should be based on the priority of the research question; the likelihood that a replication will resolve uncertainties, controversies, or the need for additional evidence; the magnitude of the benefit or harm of implementing findings of a replication; and the opportunity cost of the replication Systematic review authors, commissioners, funders, and other users (including clinicians, patients, and representatives from policy making organisations) can use the guidance and checklist proposed here to assess the need for a replicatio

    Correction to: Comparative effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin K antagonists for atrial fibrillation in clinical practice: GLORIA-AF Registry

    No full text
    International audienceIn this article, the name of the GLORIA-AF investigator Anastasios Kollias was given incorrectly as Athanasios Kollias in the Acknowledgements. The original article has been corrected

    Patterns of oral anticoagulant use and outcomes in Asian patients with atrial fibrillation: a post-hoc analysis from the GLORIA-AF Registry

    Get PDF
    Background: Previous studies suggested potential ethnic differences in the management and outcomes of atrial fibrillation (AF). We aim to analyse oral anticoagulant (OAC) prescription, discontinuation, and risk of adverse outcomes in Asian patients with AF, using data from a global prospective cohort study. Methods: From the GLORIA-AF Registry Phase II-III (November 2011-December 2014 for Phase II, and January 2014-December 2016 for Phase III), we analysed patients according to their self-reported ethnicity (Asian vs. non-Asian), as well as according to Asian subgroups (Chinese, Japanese, Korean and other Asian). Logistic regression was used to analyse OAC prescription, while the risk of OAC discontinuation and adverse outcomes were analysed through Cox-regression model. Our primary outcome was the composite of all-cause death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The original studies were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01468701, NCT01671007, and NCT01937377. Findings: 34,421 patients were included (70.0 ± 10.5 years, 45.1% females, 6900 (20.0%) Asian: 3829 (55.5%) Chinese, 814 (11.8%) Japanese, 1964 (28.5%) Korean and 293 (4.2%) other Asian). Most of the Asian patients were recruited in Asia (n = 6701, 97.1%), while non-Asian patients were mainly recruited in Europe (n = 15,449, 56.1%) and North America (n = 8378, 30.4%). Compared to non-Asian individuals, prescription of OAC and non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) was lower in Asian patients (Odds Ratio [OR] and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI): 0.23 [0.22-0.25] and 0.66 [0.61-0.71], respectively), but higher in the Japanese subgroup. Asian ethnicity was also associated with higher risk of OAC discontinuation (Hazard Ratio [HR] and [95% CI]: 1.79 [1.67-1.92]), and lower risk of the primary composite outcome (HR [95% CI]: 0.86 [0.76-0.96]). Among the exploratory secondary outcomes, Asian ethnicity was associated with higher risks of thromboembolism and intracranial haemorrhage, and lower risk of major bleeding. Interpretation: Our results showed that Asian patients with AF showed suboptimal thromboembolic risk management and a specific risk profile of adverse outcomes; these differences may also reflect differences in country-specific factors. Ensuring integrated and appropriate treatment of these patients is crucial to improve their prognosis. Funding: The GLORIA-AF Registry was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH

    The Changing Landscape for Stroke\ua0Prevention in AF

    No full text
    corecore