How can the results of the COMPASS trial benefit patients with coronary or peripheral artery disease in Poland

Aspirin decreases the risk of recurrent thrombotic events in patients with coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease but the risk of recurrent events remains high. Long‑term dual antiplatelet therapy or the combination of aspirin and warfarin further reduces the risk of recurrent events, but at the cost of increased bleeding, and neither of these treatments reduce mortality. The COMPASS (Cardiovascular Outcomes in People Using Anticoagulation Strategies) randomized controlled trial involving 27 395 patients from 602 sites in 33 countries (Poland: 9 sites, 518 patients) tested whether low‑dose anticoagulant therapy with the coagulation factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban given alone or combined with aspirin reduced thrombotic risk compared with aspirin in patients with apparently stable chronic coronary and/or peripheral artery disease. In patients treated with the combination of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily and aspirin 100 mg once daily, compared with aspirin alone, the primary outcome of the composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction was decreased by 24% (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.66 to 0.86; P < 0.001), and mortality by 18% at the cost of a 70% increase in major bleeding but no significant increase in fatal or intracranial bleeding. Results were consistent in patients with coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease, and the greatest absolute benefit was evident in the highest risk patients, including those with polyvascular disease, mild or moderate heart failure, chronic kidney disease, or diabetes. These results establish the combination of low‑dose rivaroxaban and aspirin as a highly effective treatment to decrease morbidity and mortality rates in patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease.

The effect of homocysteine-lowering with B-vitamins on osteoporotic fractures in patients with cerebrovascular disease: substudy of VITATOPS, a randomised placebo-controlled trial

10.1186/1471-2318-13-88BMC Geriatrics131

Balancing the Benefits and Risks of 2 Doses of Dabigatran Compared With Warfarin in Atrial Fibrillation

ObjectivesThis study sought to compare the net clinical benefit of dabigatran 110 mg bid and 150 mg bid with that of warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).BackgroundIn patients with AF, dabigatran 110 mg bid and 150 mg bid are associated with similar rates of death. However, the higher dose reduces ischemic stroke and increases bleeding compared with the lower dose. Therefore, there is uncertainty about how to evaluate the overall benefit of the 2 doses.MethodsIn 18,113 AF patients in the RE-LY (Randomized Evaluation of Long Term Anticoagulant Therapy) trial, we used a previously developed method for integrating ischemic and bleeding events as “ischemic stroke equivalents” in order to compare a weighted benefit of 2 doses of dabigatran with each other, and with that of warfarin.ResultsCompared with warfarin, there was a significant decrease in ischemic stroke equivalents with both dabigatran doses: –0.92 per 100 patient years (95% confidence interval [CI]: –1.74 to −0.21, p = 0.02) with dabigatran 110 mg bid and –1.08 (95% CI: –1.86 to −0.34, p = 0.01) with dabigatran 150 mg bid. There was no significant difference in ischemic stroke equivalents between the 2 doses: –0.16 (95% CI: –0.80 to 0.43) comparing dabigatran 150 mg bid with 110 bid. When including death in the weighted benefit calculations, the results were similar.ConclusionsOn a group level both doses of dabigatran as compared with warfarin have similar benefits when considering a weighted estimate including both efficacy and safety. The similar overall benefits of the 2 doses of dabigatran versus warfarin support individualizing the dose based on patient characteristics and physician and patient preferences. (Randomized Evaluation of Long Term Anticoagulant Therapy [RE-LY] With Dabigatran Etexilate; NCT00262600

Critical Current Density and n-values of MgB2 Strands over a Wide Range of Temperatures and Fields

Transport measurements of critical current density, Jct, in monocore powder-in-tube MgB2 strands have been carried out at temperatures, T, of from 4.2 K to 40 K, and in transverse fields, B, of up to 14 T. Processing methods used were conventional continuous-tube-forming-filling (CTFF) and internal-magnesium-diffusion (IMD). Strands with several powder compositions were measured, including binary (undoped) MgB2, 2% carbon doped MgB2, and 3% carbon doped MgB2. Magnetization loops (M-B) were also measured, and magnetic critical current density, Jcm, values extracted from them. The transport, Jct(B) and magnetic, Jcm(B), critical current densities were compared. Also studied was the influence of doping on the resistively measured irreversibility field, Birr and upper critical field Bc2. Critical current densities, Jct, and n-values were extracted from transport measurements and were found to be universally related (for all B and T) according to n \propto Jctm in which m = 0.52 \pm 0.11. Likewise n was found to be related to B according to n \propto B-p with a T-dependent p in the range of about 0.08~0.21. Further analysis of the field (B) and temperature (T) dependencies of n-value resulted in an expression that enabled n(B,T), for all B and T, to be estimated for a given strand based on the results of transport Jct(B) measurements made at one arbitrarily chosen temperature.Comment: 34 pages, 7 figure

Differential linguistic features of verbal fluency in behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia and primary progressive aphasia

Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is an early-onset neurodegenerative disorder with a heterogeneous clinical presentation. Verbal fluency is regularly used as a sensitive measure of language ability, semantic memory, and executive functioning, but qualitative changes in verbal fluency in FTD are currently overlooked. This retrospective study examined qualitative, linguistic features of verbal fluency in 137 patients with behavioral variant (bv)FTD (n = 50), or primary progressive aphasia (PPA) [25 non-fluent variant (nfvPPA), 27 semantic variant (svPPA), and 34 logopenic variant (lvPPA)] and 25 control participants. Between-group differences in clustering, switching, lexical frequency (LF), age of acquisition (AoA), neighborhood density (ND), and word length (WL) were examined in the category and letter fluency with analysis of variance adjusted for age, sex, and the total number of words. Associations with other cognitive functions were explored with linear regression analysis. The results showed that the verbal fluency performance of patients with svPPA could be distinguished from controls and other patient groups by fewer and smaller clusters, more switches, higher LF, and lower AoA (all p < 0.05). Patients with lvPPA specifically produced words with higher ND than the other patient groups (p < 0.05). Patients with bvFTD produced longer words than the PPA groups (p < 0.05). Clustering, switching, LF, AoA, and ND-but not WL-were differentially predicted by measures of language, memory, and executive functioning (range standardized regression coefficient 0.25-0.41). In addition to the total number of words, qualitative linguistic features differ between subtypes of FTD. These features provide additional information on lexical processing and semantic memory that may aid the differential diagnosis of FTD

COVID-19 and Thrombotic or Thromboembolic Disease: Implications for Prevention, Antithrombotic Therapy, and Follow-up

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a viral respiratory illness caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), may predispose patients to thrombotic disease, both in the venous and arterial circulations, due to excessive inflammation, platelet activation, endothelial dysfunction, and stasis. In addition, many patients receiving antithrombotic therapy for thrombotic disease may develop COVID-19, which can have implications for choice, dosing, and laboratory monitoring of antithrombotic therapy. Moreover, during a time with much focus on COVID-19, it is critical to consider how to optimize the available technology to care for patients without COVID-19 who have thrombotic disease. Herein, we review the current understanding of the pathogenesis, epidemiology, management and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 who develop venous or arterial thrombosis, and of those with preexisting thrombotic disease who develop COVID-19, or those who need prevention or care for their thrombotic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155446/1/Bikdeli-2020-COVID-19 and Thrombotic or Thromb.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155446/3/DeepBluepermissions_agreement-CCBYandCCBY-NC_ORCID_Barnes.docxhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155446/4/license_rdf.rdfDescription of Bikdeli-2020-COVID-19 and Thrombotic or Thromb.pdf : ArticleDescription of DeepBluepermissions_agreement-CCBYandCCBY-NC_ORCID_Barnes.docx : Deep Blue sharing agreemen

Extending an evidence hierarchy to include topics other than treatment: revising the Australian 'levels of evidence'

Background: In 1999 a four-level hierarchy of evidence was promoted by the National Health and Medical Research Council in Australia. The primary purpose of this hierarchy was to assist with clinical practice guideline development, although it was co-opted for use in systematic literature reviews and health technology assessments. In this hierarchy interventional study designs were ranked according to the likelihood that bias had been eliminated and thus it was not ideal to assess studies that addressed other types of clinical questions. This paper reports on the revision and extension of this evidence hierarchy to enable broader use within existing evidence assessment systems. Methods: A working party identified and assessed empirical evidence, and used a commissioned review of existing evidence assessment schema, to support decision-making regarding revision of the hierarchy. The aim was to retain the existing evidence levels I-IV but increase their relevance for assessing the quality of individual diagnostic accuracy, prognostic, aetiologic and screening studies. Comprehensive public consultation was undertaken and the revised hierarchy was piloted by individual health technology assessment agencies and clinical practice guideline developers. After two and a half years, the hierarchy was again revised and commenced a further 18 month pilot period. Results: A suitable framework was identified upon which to model the revision. Consistency was maintained in the hierarchy of "levels of evidence" across all types of clinical questions; empirical evidence was used to support the relationship between study design and ranking in the hierarchy wherever possible; and systematic reviews of lower level studies were themselves ascribed a ranking. The impact of ethics on the hierarchy of study designs was acknowledged in the framework, along with a consideration of how harms should be assessed. Conclusion: The revised evidence hierarchy is now widely used and provides a common standard against which to initially judge the likelihood of bias in individual studies evaluating interventional, diagnostic accuracy, prognostic, aetiologic or screening topics. Detailed quality appraisal of these individual studies, as well as grading of the body of evidence to answer each clinical, research or policy question, can then be undertaken as required.Tracy Merlin, Adele Weston and Rebecca Toohe