A multinational Delphi consensus to end the COVID-19 public health threat

Abstract Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the COVID-19 pandemic 1,2 . Here we convened, as part of this Delphi study, a diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 academic, health, non-governmental organization, government and other experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries and territories to recommend specific actions to end this persistent global threat to public health. The panel developed a set of 41 consensus statements and 57 recommendations to governments, health systems, industry and other key stakeholders across six domains: communication; health systems; vaccination; prevention; treatment and care; and inequities. In the wake of nearly three years of fragmented global and national responses, it is instructive to note that three of the highest-ranked recommendations call for the adoption of whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches 1 , while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach 2 that employs a range of public health and financial support measures to complement vaccination. Other recommendations with at least 99% combined agreement advise governments and other stakeholders to improve communication, rebuild public trust and engage communities 3 in the management of pandemic responses. The findings of the study, which have been further endorsed by 184 organizations globally, include points of unanimous agreement, as well as six recommendations with >5% disagreement, that provide health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help to bring this public health threat to an end

A multinational Delphi consensus to end the COVID-19 public health threat

Abstract Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the COVID-19 pandemic . Here we convened, as part of this Delphi study, a diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 academic, health, non-governmental organization, government and other experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries and territories to recommend specific actions to end this persistent global threat to public health. The panel developed a set of 41 consensus statements and 57 recommendations to governments, health systems, industry and other key stakeholders across six domains: communication; health systems; vaccination; prevention; treatment and care; and inequities. In the wake of nearly three years of fragmented global and national responses, it is instructive to note that three of the highest-ranked recommendations call for the adoption of whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches , while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach that employs a range of public health and financial support measures to complement vaccination. Other recommendations with at least 99% combined agreement advise governments and other stakeholders to improve communication, rebuild public trust and engage communities in the management of pandemic responses. The findings of the study, which have been further endorsed by 184 organizations globally, include points of unanimous agreement, as well as six recommendations with >5% disagreement, that provide health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help to bring this public health threat to an end

A multinational Delphi consensus to end the COVID-19 public health threat

Abstract Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the COVID-19 pandemic 1,2 . Here we convened, as part of this Delphi study, a diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 academic, health, non-governmental organization, government and other experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries and territories to recommend specific actions to end this persistent global threat to public health. The panel developed a set of 41 consensus statements and 57 recommendations to governments, health systems, industry and other key stakeholders across six domains: communication; health systems; vaccination; prevention; treatment and care; and inequities. In the wake of nearly three years of fragmented global and national responses, it is instructive to note that three of the highest-ranked recommendations call for the adoption of whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches 1 , while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach 2 that employs a range of public health and financial support measures to complement vaccination. Other recommendations with at least 99% combined agreement advise governments and other stakeholders to improve communication, rebuild public trust and engage communities 3 in the management of pandemic responses. The findings of the study, which have been further endorsed by 184 organizations globally, include points of unanimous agreement, as well as six recommendations with >5% disagreement, that provide health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help to bring this public health threat to an end

Risk for Major Bleeding in Patients Receiving Ticagrelor Compared With Aspirin After Transient Ischemic Attack or Acute Ischemic Stroke in the SOCRATES Study (Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack Treated With Aspirin or Ticagrelor and Patient Outcomes)

Abstract: Background: Patients with minor acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack are at high risk for subsequent stroke, and more potent antiplatelet therapy in the acute setting is needed. However, the potential benefit of more intense antiplatelet therapy must be assessed in relation to the risk for major bleeding. The SOCRATES trial (Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack Treated With Aspirin or Ticagrelor and Patient Outcomes) was the first trial with ticagrelor in patients with acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack in which the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor were compared with those of aspirin. The main safety objective was assessment of PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes)\u2013defined major bleeds on treatment, with special focus on intracranial hemorrhage (ICrH). Methods: An independent adjudication committee blinded to study treatment classified bleeds according to the PLATO, TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction), and GUSTO (Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries) definitions. The definitions of ICrH and major bleeding excluded cerebral microbleeds and asymptomatic hemorrhagic transformations of cerebral infarctions so that the definitions better discriminated important events in the acute stroke population. Results: A total of 13 130 of 13 199 randomized patients received at least 1 dose of study drug and were included in the safety analysis set. PLATO major bleeds occurred in 31 patients (0.5%) on ticagrelor and 38 patients (0.6%) on aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.52\u20131.34). The most common locations of major bleeds were intracranial and gastrointestinal. ICrH was reported in 12 patients (0.2%) on ticagrelor and 18 patients (0.3%) on aspirin. Thirteen of all 30 ICrHs (4 on ticagrelor and 9 on aspirin) were hemorrhagic strokes, and 4 (2 in each group) were symptomatic hemorrhagic transformations of brain infarctions. The ICrHs were spontaneous in 6 and 13, traumatic in 3 and 3, and procedural in 3 and 2 patients on ticagrelor and aspirin, respectively. In total, 9 fatal bleeds occurred on ticagrelor and 4 on aspirin. The composite of ICrH or fatal bleeding included 15 patients on ticagrelor and 18 on aspirin. Independently of bleeding classification, PLATO, TIMI, or GUSTO, the relative difference between treatments for major/severe bleeds was similar. Nonmajor bleeds were more common on ticagrelor. Conclusions: Antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor in patients with acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack showed a bleeding profile similar to that of aspirin for major bleeds. There were few ICrHs. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01994720.Abstract: BACKGROUND: Patients with minor acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack are at high risk for subsequent stroke, and more potent antiplatelet therapy in the acute setting is needed. However, the potential benefit of more intense antiplatelet therapy must be assessed in relation to the risk for major bleeding. The SOCRATES trial (Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack Treated With Aspirin or Ticagrelor and Patient Outcomes) was the first trial with ticagrelor in patients with acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack in which the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor were compared with those of aspirin. The main safety objective was assessment of PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes)-defined major bleeds on treatment, with special focus on intracranial hemorrhage (ICrH). METHODS: An independent adjudication committee blinded to study treatment classified bleeds according to the PLATO, TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction), and GUSTO (Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries) definitions. The definitions of ICrH and major bleeding excluded cerebral microbleeds and asymptomatic hemorrhagic transformations of cerebral infarctions so that the definitions better discriminated important events in the acute stroke population. RESULTS: A total of 13 130 of 13 199 randomized patients received at least 1 dose of study drug and were included in the safety analysis set. PLATO major bleeds occurred in 31 patients (0.5%) on ticagrelor and 38 patients (0.6%) on aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.34). The most common locations of major bleeds were intracranial and gastrointestinal. ICrH was reported in 12 patients (0.2%) on ticagrelor and 18 patients (0.3%) on aspirin. Thirteen of all 30 ICrHs (4 on ticagrelor and 9 on aspirin) were hemorrhagic strokes, and 4 (2 in each group) were symptomatic hemorrhagic transformations of brain infarctions. The ICrHs were spontaneous in 6 and 13, traumatic in 3 and 3, and procedural in 3 and 2 patients on ticagrelor and aspirin, respectively. In total, 9 fatal bleeds occurred on ticagrelor and 4 on aspirin. The composite of ICrH or fatal bleeding included 15 patients on ticagrelor and 18 on aspirin. Independently of bleeding classification, PLATO, TIMI, or GUSTO, the relative difference between treatments for major/severe bleeds was similar. Nonmajor bleeds were more common on ticagrelor. CONCLUSIONS: Antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor in patients with acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack showed a bleeding profile similar to that of aspirin for major bleeds. There were few ICrHs