The interest of the Spanish network of investigators in back pain for rehabilitation physician

Background: The Spanish Back Pain Research Network (REIDE) brings together teams of researchers and clinicians who are interested in nonspecific neck and back pain (BP). Its objective is to improve the efficacy, safety, effectiveness, and efficiency of the clinical management of BP. Method: The Network welcomes clinicians and researchers interested in BP. The only requirement to become a member of REIDE is to take part in one of its research projects, and any member can propose a new one. The Network supports those projects that are of interest to two or more groups by assuming their administration and management, which allows the researchers to focus on their task. Its working method ensures methodological quality, a multidisciplinary approach, and the clinical relevance of those projects that are carried out. Results: 179 researchers from 11 areas in Spain are involved in REIDE, including experts in all of the relevant fields of BP research. Most Spanish studies on BP that have been published in international scientific journals come from the teams involved in REIDE, and it currently has 13 ongoing research projects. Conclusions: The Network can help to enhance research among rehabilitation specialists who are interested in BP, and can contribute to the development of research projects which are of interest to the specialty. © 2005 Sociedad Española de Rehabilitación y Medicina Física (SERMEF) y Elsevier España, S.L

Patterns of oral anticoagulant use and outcomes in Asian patients with atrial fibrillation: a post-hoc analysis from the GLORIA-AF Registry

Background: Previous studies suggested potential ethnic differences in the management and outcomes of atrial fibrillation (AF). We aim to analyse oral anticoagulant (OAC) prescription, discontinuation, and risk of adverse outcomes in Asian patients with AF, using data from a global prospective cohort study. Methods: From the GLORIA-AF Registry Phase II-III (November 2011-December 2014 for Phase II, and January 2014-December 2016 for Phase III), we analysed patients according to their self-reported ethnicity (Asian vs. non-Asian), as well as according to Asian subgroups (Chinese, Japanese, Korean and other Asian). Logistic regression was used to analyse OAC prescription, while the risk of OAC discontinuation and adverse outcomes were analysed through Cox-regression model. Our primary outcome was the composite of all-cause death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The original studies were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01468701, NCT01671007, and NCT01937377. Findings: 34,421 patients were included (70.0 ± 10.5 years, 45.1% females, 6900 (20.0%) Asian: 3829 (55.5%) Chinese, 814 (11.8%) Japanese, 1964 (28.5%) Korean and 293 (4.2%) other Asian). Most of the Asian patients were recruited in Asia (n = 6701, 97.1%), while non-Asian patients were mainly recruited in Europe (n = 15,449, 56.1%) and North America (n = 8378, 30.4%). Compared to non-Asian individuals, prescription of OAC and non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) was lower in Asian patients (Odds Ratio [OR] and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI): 0.23 [0.22-0.25] and 0.66 [0.61-0.71], respectively), but higher in the Japanese subgroup. Asian ethnicity was also associated with higher risk of OAC discontinuation (Hazard Ratio [HR] and [95% CI]: 1.79 [1.67-1.92]), and lower risk of the primary composite outcome (HR [95% CI]: 0.86 [0.76-0.96]). Among the exploratory secondary outcomes, Asian ethnicity was associated with higher risks of thromboembolism and intracranial haemorrhage, and lower risk of major bleeding. Interpretation: Our results showed that Asian patients with AF showed suboptimal thromboembolic risk management and a specific risk profile of adverse outcomes; these differences may also reflect differences in country-specific factors. Ensuring integrated and appropriate treatment of these patients is crucial to improve their prognosis. Funding: The GLORIA-AF Registry was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH

Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation

Contains fulltext : 125374.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Edoxaban is a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor with proven antithrombotic effects. The long-term efficacy and safety of edoxaban as compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation is not known. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial comparing two once-daily regimens of edoxaban with warfarin in 21,105 patients with moderate-to-high-risk atrial fibrillation (median follow-up, 2.8 years). The primary efficacy end point was stroke or systemic embolism. Each edoxaban regimen was tested for noninferiority to warfarin during the treatment period. The principal safety end point was major bleeding. RESULTS: The annualized rate of the primary end point during treatment was 1.50% with warfarin (median time in the therapeutic range, 68.4%), as compared with 1.18% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.79; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.99; P<0.001 for noninferiority) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 1.07; 97.5% CI, 0.87 to 1.31; P=0.005 for noninferiority). In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was a trend favoring high-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 0.87; 97.5% CI, 0.73 to 1.04; P=0.08) and an unfavorable trend with low-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 1.13; 97.5% CI, 0.96 to 1.34; P=0.10). The annualized rate of major bleeding was 3.43% with warfarin versus 2.75% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.91; P<0.001) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.55; P<0.001). The corresponding annualized rates of death from cardiovascular causes were 3.17% versus 2.74% (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.97; P=0.01), and 2.71% (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.96; P=0.008), and the corresponding rates of the key secondary end point (a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes) were 4.43% versus 3.85% (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.96; P=0.005), and 4.23% (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.05; P=0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Both once-daily regimens of edoxaban were noninferior to warfarin with respect to the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism and were associated with significantly lower rates of bleeding and death from cardiovascular causes. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development; ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00781391.)