The atrial fibrillation epidemic is approaching the physician's door : will mobile technology improve detection?

Peer reviewe

Guidelines of the International Headache Society for Controlled Clinical Trials in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension

Idiopathic intracranial hypertension; Pseudotumor cerebri; Randomised control trialHipertensión intracraneal idiopática; Pseudotumor cerebral; Ensayo de control aleatorioHipertensió intracranial idiopàtica; Pseudotumor cerebral; Assaig de control aleatoriThe quality of clinical trials is essential to advance treatment, inform regulatory decisions and meta-analysis. With the increased incidence of idiopathic intracranial hypertension and the emergence of clinical trials for novel therapies in this condition, the International Headache Society Guidelines for Controlled Clinical Trials in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension aims to establish guidelines for designing state-of-the-art controlled clinical trials for idiopathic intracranial hypertension.KBD is supported in part by an Unrestricted Grant from Research to Prevent Blindness, New York, NY, to the Department of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, University of Utah

Predicting long-term outcome after acute ischemic stroke: a simple index works in patients from controlled clinical trials

Background and Purpose—An early and reliable prognosis for recovery in stroke patients is important for initiation of individual treatment and for informing patients and relatives. We recently developed and validated models for predicting survival and functional independence within 3 months after acute stroke, based on age and the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score assessed within 6 hours after stroke. Herein we demonstrate the applicability of our models in an independent sample of patients from controlled clinical trials. Methods—The prognostic models were used to predict survival and functional recovery in 5419 patients from the Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive (VISTA). Furthermore, we tried to improve the accuracy by adapting intercepts and estimating new model parameters. Results—The original models were able to correctly classify 70.4% (survival) and 72.9% (functional recovery) of patients. Because the prediction was slightly pessimistic for patients in the controlled trials, adapting the intercept improved the accuracy to 74.8% (survival) and 74.0% (functional recovery). Novel estimation of parameters, however, yielded no relevant further improvement. Conclusions—For acute ischemic stroke patients included in controlled trials, our easy-to-apply prognostic models based on age and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score correctly predicted survival and functional recovery after 3 months. Furthermore, a simple adaptation helps to adjust for a different prognosis and is recommended if a large data set is available. (Stroke. 2008;39:000-000.

Prednisone for the treatment of withdrawal headache in patients with medication overuse headache: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Purpose: To investigate the efficacy of prednisone for treatment of withdrawal headache in patients with medication overuse headache (MOH). Patients and methods: In this prospective double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel designed multicentre trial, 96 consecutive patients with MOH were randomized to withdrawal treatment with either 100 mg prednisone or placebo over 5 days. Patients were enrolled if they met the International Headache Society criteria for MOH and were diagnosed with migraine or episodic tension-type headache as primary headache. Exclusion criteria comprised significant neurological or psychiatric disorders. Withdrawal symptoms, including headache severity and intake of rescue medication, were documented for 14 days after randomization. Results: Patients treated with prednisone did not experience fewer hours of moderate or severe headache than patients receiving placebo. However, patients requested less rescue medication within the first 5 days. Conclusions: During withdrawal in MOH, prednisone reduces rescue medication without decreasing the severity and duration of withdrawal headache

Cost-effectiveness analysis of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for the treatment of chronic cluster headache

Background: Cluster headache (CH) is a debilitating condition that is generally associated with substantial health care costs. Few therapies are approved for abortive or prophylactic treatment. Results from the prospective, randomised, open-label PREVA study suggested that adjunctive treatment with a novel non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) device led to decreased attack frequency and abortive medication use in patients with chronic CH (cCH). Herein, we evaluate whether nVNS is cost-effective compared with the current standard of care (SoC) for cCH. Methods: A pharmacoeconomic model from the German statutory health insurance perspective was developed to estimate the 1-year cost-effectiveness of nVNS + SoC (versus SoC alone) using data from PREVA. Short-term treatment response data were taken from the clinical trial;longer-term response was modelled under scenarios of response maintenance, constant rate of response loss, and diminishing rate of response loss. Health-related quality of life was estimated by modelling EQ-5D T data from PREVA;benefits were defined as quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Abortive medication use data from PREVA, along with costs for the nVNS device and abortive therapies (i.e. intranasal zolmitriptan, subcutaneous sumatriptan, and inhaled oxygen), were used to assess health care costs in the German setting. Results: The analysis resulted in mean expected yearly costs of (sic)7096.69 for nVNS + SoC and (sic)7511.35 for SoC alone and mean QALY of 0.607 for nVNS + SoC and 0.522 for SoC alone, suggesting that nVNS generates greater health benefits for lower overall cost. Abortive medication costs were 23 % lower with nVNS + SoC than with SoC alone. In the alternative scenarios (i.e. constant rate of response loss and diminishing rate of response loss), nVNS + SoC was more effective and cost saving than SoC alone. Conclusions: In all scenarios modelled from a German perspective, nVNS was cost-effective compared with current SoC, which suggests that adjunctive nVNS therapy provides economic benefits in the treatment of cCH. Notably, the current analysis included only costs associated with abortive treatments. Treatment with nVNS will likely promote further economic benefit when other potential sources of cost savings (e.g. reduced frequency of clinic visits) are considered

Predictors of Recurrent Stroke After Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source in the RE‐SPECT ESUS Trial

Risk factors; Secondary prevention; Stroke predictorsFactores de riesgo; Prevención secundaria; Predictores de accidentes cerebrovascularesFactors de risc; Prevenció secundària; Predictors d'accidents cerebrovascularsBackground We sought to determine recurrent stroke predictors among patients with embolic strokes of undetermined source (ESUS). Methods and Results We applied Cox proportional hazards models to identify clinical features associated with recurrent stroke among participants enrolled in RE‐SPECT ESUS (Randomized, Double‐Blind, Evaluation in Secondary Stroke Prevention Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of the Oral Thrombin Inhibitor Dabigatran Etexilate Versus Acetylsalicylic Acid in Patients With Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source) trial, an international clinical trial evaluating dabigatran versus aspirin for patients with ESUS. During a median follow‐up of 19 months, 384 of 5390 participants had recurrent stroke (annual rate, 4.5%). Multivariable models revealed that stroke or transient ischemic attack before the index event (hazard ratio [HR], 2.27 [95% CI, 1.83–2.82]), creatinine clearance <50 mL/min (HR, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.23–2.32]), male sex (HR, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.27–2.02]), and CHA2DS2‐VASc ≥4 (HR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.15–2.08] and HR, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.21–2.26] for scores of 4 and ≥5, respectively) versus CHA2DS2‐VASc of 2 to 3, were independent predictors for recurrent stroke. Conclusions In RE‐SPECT ESUS trial, expected risk factors previously linked to other common stroke causes were associated with stroke recurrence. These data help define high‐risk groups for subsequent stroke that may be useful for clinicians and for researchers designing trials among patients with ESUS.This study was supported by Boehringer Ingelheim

Anticoagulant selection in relation to the SAMe-TT2R2 score in patients with atrial fibrillation: The GLORIA-AF registry

Aim The SAMe-TT2R2 score helps identify patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) likely to have poor anticoagulation control during anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) and those with scores >2 might be better managed with a target-specific oral anticoagulant (NOAC). We hypothesized that in clinical practice, VKAs may be prescribed less frequently to patients with AF and SAMe-TT2R2 scores >2 than to patients with lower scores. Methods and results We analyzed the Phase III dataset of the Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation (GLORIA-AF), a large, global, prospective global registry of patients with newly diagnosed AF and ≥1 stroke risk factor. We compared baseline clinical characteristics and antithrombotic prescriptions to determine the probability of the VKA prescription among anticoagulated patients with the baseline SAMe-TT2R2 score >2 and ≤ 2. Among 17,465 anticoagulated patients with AF, 4,828 (27.6%) patients were prescribed VKA and 12,637 (72.4%) patients an NOAC: 11,884 (68.0%) patients had SAMe-TT2R2 scores 0-2 and 5,581 (32.0%) patients had scores >2. The proportion of patients prescribed VKA was 28.0% among patients with SAMe-TT2R2 scores >2 and 27.5% in those with scores ≤2. Conclusions The lack of a clear association between the SAMe-TT2R2 score and anticoagulant selection may be attributed to the relative efficacy and safety profiles between NOACs and VKAs as well as to the absence of trial evidence that an SAMe-TT2R2-guided strategy for the selection of the type of anticoagulation in NVAF patients has an impact on clinical outcomes of efficacy and safety. The latter hypothesis is currently being tested in a randomized controlled trial