Randomized trials fit for the 21st century. A joint opinion from the European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and the World Heart Federation

© The Author(s) 2022. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. When citing this article, a citation from any of the journals listed is appropriate. For commercial re-use, please contact [email protected] controlled trials are the cornerstone for reliably evaluating therapeutic strategies. However, during the past 25 years, the rules and regulations governing randomized trials and their interpretation have become increasingly burdensome, and the cost and complexity of trials has become prohibitive. The present model is unsustainable, and the development of potentially effective treatments is often stopped prematurely on financial grounds, while existing drug treatments or non-drug interventions (such as screening strategies or management tools) may not be assessed reliably. The current ‘best regulatory practice’ environment, and a lack of consensus on what that requires, too often makes it unduly difficult to undertake efficient randomized trials able to provide reliable evidence about the safety and efficacy of potentially valuable interventions. Inclusion of underrepresented population groups and lack of diversity also remain among the challenges.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Critique of the 2017 epileptic seizure and epilepsy classifications

This article critiques the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) 2015-2017 classifications of epilepsy, epileptic seizures, and status epilepticus. It points out the following shortcomings of the ILAE classifications: (1) they mix semiological terms with epileptogenic zone terminology; (2) simple and widely accepted terminology has been replaced by complex terminology containing less information; (3) seizure evolution cannot be described in any detail; (4) in the four-level epilepsy classification, level two (epilepsy category) overlaps almost 100% with diagnostic level one (seizure type); and (5) the design of different classifications with distinct frameworks for newborns, adults, and patients in status epilepticus is confusing. The authors stress the importance of validating the new ILAE classifications and feel that the decision of Epilepsia to accept only manuscripts that use the ILAE classifications is premature and regrettable

Classification of paroxysmal events and the four-dimensional epilepsy classification system

This educational review describes the classification of paroxysmal events and a four-dimensional epilepsy classification system. Paroxysmal events are classified as epileptic and non-epileptic paroxysmal events. Non-epileptic events are, in turn, classified as psychogenic and organic paroxysmal events. The following four dimensions are used to classify epileptic paroxysmal events: ictal semiology, the epileptogenic zone, etiology, and comorbidities. Efforts are made to keep these four dimensions as independent as possible. The review also includes 12 educational vignettes and three more detailed case reports classified using the 2017 classification of the ILAE and the four-dimensional epilepsy classification. In addition, a case is described which is classified using the four-dimensional epilepsy classification with different degrees of precision by an emergency department physician, a neurologist, and an epileptologist. [Published with video sequences on www.epilepticdisorders.com]

Age-stratified and blood-pressure-stratified effects of blood-pressure-lowering pharmacotherapy for the prevention of cardiovascular disease and death: an individual participant-level data meta-analysis

Background: The effects of pharmacological blood-pressure-lowering on cardiovascular outcomes in individuals aged 70 years and older, particularly when blood pressure is not substantially increased, is uncertain. We compared the effects of blood-pressure-lowering treatment on the risk of major cardiovascular events in groups of patients stratified by age and blood pressure at baseline. Methods: We did a meta-analysis using individual participant-level data from randomised controlled trials of pharmacological blood-pressure-lowering versus placebo or other classes of blood-pressure-lowering medications, or between more versus less intensive treatment strategies, which had at least 1000 persons-years of follow-up in each treatment group. Participants with previous history of heart failure were excluded. Data were obtained from the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Triallists' Collaboration. We pooled the data and categorised participants into baseline age groups (<55 years, 55–64 years, 65–74 years, 75–84 years, and ≥85 years) and blood pressure categories (in 10 mm Hg increments from <120 mm Hg to ≥170 mm Hg systolic blood pressure and from <70 mm Hg to ≥110 mm Hg diastolic). We used a fixed effects one-stage approach and applied Cox proportional hazard models, stratified by trial, to analyse the data. The primary outcome was defined as either a composite of fatal or non-fatal stroke, fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction or ischaemic heart disease, or heart failure causing death or requiring hospital admission. Findings: We included data from 358 707 participants from 51 randomised clinical trials. The age of participants at randomisation ranged from 21 years to 105 years (median 65 years [IQR 59–75]), with 42 960 (12·0%) participants younger than 55 years, 128 437 (35·8%) aged 55–64 years, 128 506 (35·8%) 65–74 years, 54 016 (15·1%) 75–84 years, and 4788 (1·3%) 85 years and older. The hazard ratios for the risk of major cardiovascular events per 5 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure for each age group were 0·82 (95% CI 0·76–0·88) in individuals younger than 55 years, 0·91 (0·88–0·95) in those aged 55–64 years, 0·91 (0·88–0·95) in those aged 65–74 years, 0·91 (0·87–0·96) in those aged 75–84 years, and 0·99 (0·87–1·12) in those aged 85 years and older (adjusted pinteraction=0·050). Similar patterns of proportional risk reductions were observed for a 3 mm Hg reduction in diastolic blood pressure. Absolute risk reductions for major cardiovascular events varied by age and were larger in older groups (adjusted pinteraction=0·024). We did not find evidence for any clinically meaningful heterogeneity of relative treatment effects across different baseline blood pressure categories in any age group. Interpretation: Pharmacological blood pressure reduction is effective into old age, with no evidence that relative risk reductions for prevention of major cardiovascular events vary by systolic or diastolic blood pressure levels at randomisation, down to less than 120/70 mm Hg. Pharmacological blood pressure reduction should, therefore, be considered an important treatment option regardless of age, with the removal of age-related blood-pressure thresholds from international guidelines. Funding: British Heart Foundation, National Institute of Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford Martin School

Could the 2017 ILAE and the four-dimensional epilepsy classifications be merged to a new “Integrated Epilepsy Classification”?

•The differences of the two epilepsy classifications (ECs) in use have been discussed extensively.•Here we reviewed and assessed the concordance between these two approaches that has evolved over time.•We considered whether a classification incorporating the best aspects of the two approaches is feasible.•A concrete proposal showing how such a compromise could be accomplished is proposed and discussed.•The suggested “Integrated EC” includes five categories derived both classification systems. Over the last few decades the ILAE classifications for seizures and epilepsies (ILAE-EC) have been updated repeatedly to reflect the substantial progress that has been made in diagnosis and understanding of the etiology of epilepsies and seizures and to correct some of the shortcomings of the terminology used by the original taxonomy from the 1980s. However, these proposals have not been universally accepted or used in routine clinical practice. During the same period, a separate classification known as the “Four-dimensional epilepsy classification” (4D-EC) was developed which includes a seizure classification based exclusively on ictal symptomatology, which has been tested and adapted over the years. The extensive arguments for and against these two classification systems made in the past have mainly focused on the shortcomings of each system, presuming that they are incompatible. As a further more detailed discussion of the differences seemed relatively unproductive, we here review and assess the concordance between these two approaches that has evolved over time, to consider whether a classification incorporating the best aspects of the two approaches is feasible. To facilitate further discussion in this direction we outline a concrete proposal showing how such a compromise could be accomplished, the “Integrated Epilepsy Classification”. This consists of five categories derived to different degrees from both of the classification systems: 1) a “Headline” summarizing localization and etiology for the less specialized users, 2) “Seizure type(s)”, 3) “Epilepsy type” (focal, generalized or unknown allowing to add the epilepsy syndrome if available), 4) “Etiology”, and 5) “Comorbidities & patient preferences”

Fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (2018)

N/