Practice patterns and outcomes after stroke across countries at different economic levels (INTERSTROKE):an international observational study

Background: Stroke disproportionately affects people in low-income and middle-income countries. Although improvements in stroke care and outcomes have been reported in high-income countries, little is known about practice and outcomes in low and middle-income countries. We aimed to compare patterns of care available and their association with patient outcomes across countries at different economic levels. Methods: We studied the patterns and effect of practice variations (ie, treatments used and access to services) among participants in the INTERSTROKE study, an international observational study that enrolled 13 447 stroke patients from 142 clinical sites in 32 countries between Jan 11, 2007, and Aug 8, 2015. We supplemented patient data with a questionnaire about health-care and stroke service facilities at all participating hospitals. Using univariate and multivariate regression analyses to account for patient casemix and service clustering, we estimated the association between services available, treatments given, and patient outcomes (death or dependency) at 1 month. Findings: We obtained full information for 12 342 (92%) of 13 447 INTERSTROKE patients, from 108 hospitals in 28 countries; 2576 from 38 hospitals in ten high-income countries and 9766 from 70 hospitals in 18 low and middle-income countries. Patients in low-income and middle-income countries more often had severe strokes, intracerebral haemorrhage, poorer access to services, and used fewer investigations and treatments (p<0·0001) than those in high-income countries, although only differences in patient characteristics explained the poorer clinical outcomes in low and middle-income countries. However across all countries, irrespective of economic level, access to a stroke unit was associated with improved use of investigations and treatments, access to other rehabilitation services, and improved survival without severe dependency (odds ratio [OR] 1·29; 95% CI 1·14–1·44; all p<0·0001), which was independent of patient casemix characteristics and other measures of care. Use of acute antiplatelet treatment was associated with improved survival (1·39; 1·12–1·72) irrespective of other patient and service characteristics. Interpretation: Evidence-based treatments, diagnostics, and stroke units were less commonly available or used in low and middle-income countries. Access to stroke units and appropriate use of antiplatelet treatment were associated with improved recovery. Improved care and facilities in low-income and middle-income countries are essential to improve outcomes

Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in stable cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary cardiovascular prevention. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=−4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events