Protocol for a systematic review of the diagnostic and prognostic utility of tests currently available for the detection of aspirin resistance in patients with established cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease

BACKGROUND: The benefits of aspirin as an anti-platelet agent are well established; however, there has been much debate about the lack of uniformity in the efficacy of aspirin to inhibit platelet function. In some patients, aspirin fails to inhibit platelets even where compliance has been verified, a phenomenon which has been termed “aspirin resistance”. These patients may in turn be at a higher risk of future vascular events. The proportion of “resistant” patients identified depends on the type of platelet function test. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to determine which, if any, platelet function test has utility in terms of identifying patients with a high risk of vascular events. The review has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42012002151). METHODS: Relevant studies will be sought from bibliographic databases. Trials registers will be searched for ongoing studies. Reference lists will be checked and subject experts contacted. There will be no date or language restrictions. Standard reviewing methodology to minimise bias will be employed. Any prospective studies in patients on aspirin therapy and assessing platelet function in relation to relevant clinical outcomes will be included, as will studies reporting prognostic models. Risk of bias assessment will be based on the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies guidelines, and suitable criteria for assessing quality of prognostic studies. Data on test accuracy measures, relative risks, odds or hazard ratios will be extracted and meta-analysed, where possible, using a random-effects model to account for between-study heterogeneity. Where appropriate, the causes of heterogeneity will be explored through meta-regression and sub-group or sensitivity analyses. If platelet function testing is demonstrated to have diagnostic/predictive utility in a specific population, the potential for a cost-effectiveness analysis will be considered and, if possible, an economic model constructed. This will be supported by a systematic review of existing economic evaluation studies. DISCUSSION: The results of the review could indicate if platelet function test(s) could lead to a reliable prediction of the risk of clinically important events in a defined population, and thus support investigations into adjustments to therapy in order to compensate for a predicted poor response to standard aspirin

Consensus recommendations on flow cytometry for the assessment of inherited and acquired disorders of platelet number and function : communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Platelet Physiology

Flow cytometry is increasingly used in the study of platelets in inherited and acquired disorders of platelet number and function. However, wide variation exists in specific reagents, methods, and equipment used, making interpretation and comparison of results difficult. The goal of the present study was to provide expert consensus guidance on the use of flow cytometry for the evaluation of platelet disorders. A modified RAND/UCLA survey method was used to obtain a consensus among 11 experts from 10 countries across four continents, on the appropriateness of statements relating to clinical utility, pre-analytical variables, instrument and reagent standardization, methods, reporting, and quality control for platelet flow cytometry. Feedback from the initial survey revealed that uncertainty was sometimes due to lack of expertise with a particular test condition rather than unavailable or ambiguous data. To address this, the RAND method was modified to allow experts to self-identify statements for which they could not provide expert input. There was uniform agreement among experts in the areas of instrument and reagent standardization, methods, reporting, and quality control and this agreement is used to suggest best practices in these areas. However, 25.9% and 50% of statements related to pre-analytical variables and clinical utility, respectively, were rated as uncertain. Thus, while citrate is the preferred anticoagulant for many flow cytometric platelet tests, expert opinions differed on the acceptability of other anticoagulants, particularly heparin. Lack of expert consensus on the clinical utility of many flow cytometric platelet tests indicates the need for rigorous multicenter clinical outcome studies

Frontal sinuses and human evolution

The frontal sinuses are cavities inside the frontal bone located at the junction between the face and the cranial vault and close to the brain. Despite a long history of study, understanding of their origin and variation through evolution is limited. This work compares most hominin species’ holotypes and other key individuals with extant hominids. It provides a unique and valuable perspective of the variation in sinuses position, shape, and dimensions based on a simple and reproducible methodology. We also observed a covariation between the size and shape of the sinuses and the underlying frontal lobes in hominin species from at least the appearance of Homo erectus. Our results additionally undermine hypotheses stating that hominin frontal sinuses were directly affected by biomechanical constraints resulting from either chewing or adaptation to climate. Last, we demonstrate their substantial potential for discussions of the evolutionary relationships between hominin species

Brain-derived neurotrophic factor mitigates the association between platelet dysfunction and cognitive impairment

Background: Platelet hyperactivity is deleterious in coronary artery disease (CAD), requiring lifelong antiplatelet therapy, and is associated with worse cognitive outcomes. Upon activation, platelets release Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF), a neurotrophin protective against cognitive decline. Given these apparently opposing effects of platelet activation on cognitive health, we investigated whether BDNF levels intercede in the relationship between platelet activation and cognitive function; and whether this relationship is moderated by the presence of CAD. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 1,280 participants with (n = 673) and without CAD (n = 607) completed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Plasma BDNF and soluble P-selectin (a marker of platelet activity) levels were assessed using multiplex flow cytometry. Results: In a mediation model, platelet activity was correlated with higher plasma BDNF concentrations (b = 0.53, p < 0.0001). The relationship between sP-selectin and BDNF concentrations was stronger for individuals without CAD (b = 0.71, p < 0.0001) than for CAD participants (b = 0.43, p < 0.0001; pinteraction < 0.0001). Higher BDNF concentrations were associated with higher MoCA scores (b = 0.26, p = 0.03). The overall effect of platelet activity on cognitive performance was non-significant (total effect: b = −0.12, p = 0.13), and became significant when accounting for BDNF as a mediating factor (direct effect: b = −0.26, p = 0.01). This resulted in a positive indirect effect of platelet activity (via BDNF) on MoCA scores (b = 0.14, CI 95% 0.02–0.30), that was smaller in CAD participants than in non-CAD participants [1 −0.07 (95% CI −0.14 to −0.01)]. Conclusions: BDNF released from activated platelets could be a mitigating factor in a negative association between platelet activity and cognitive function

Investigating the effectiveness of different aspirin dosing regimens and the timing of aspirin intake in primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease : protocol for a systematic review

Background Once-daily low-dose aspirin is routinely used for the prevention of secondary events in cardiovascular disease (CVD). The routine use of aspirin in primary prevention of CVD is less clear due to a finer balance between benefits and harms. In addition, the variability in benefit achievable from the prescription of aspirin has led to a growing interest in considering whether there are more effective aspirin regimens than once-daily dosing or whether effectiveness is influenced by the time of day aspirin is taken (chronotherapy). The proposed systematic review will evaluate the evidence on the effects of different aspirin regimens used in terms of number of doses (e.g. split or alternate dosing) or dosing time of aspirin (e.g. morning versus evening) in primary and secondary prevention of CVD. Methods/design Standard systematic review methodology will be employed for study identification, selection and data extraction. Electronic databases will be searched incorporating terms relating to population and the intervention. No date or language limitations will apply. Systematic reviews and controlled studies comparing different aspirin regimens—in terms of frequency or timing—for primary and/or secondary prevention of CVD will be included. No restrictions on outcome will apply. Quality assessment will be appropriate for each study design. The data will be tabulated and narratively synthesised. Meta-analysis may be undertaken where clinical and methodological homogeneity exists. Discussion There are a number of published and ongoing primary studies that investigate the cardiovascular protective effect of different aspirin regimens. However, no systematic review to date has attempted to review the evidence pertaining to aspirin dosing regimens differing in frequency and/or in timing. The proposed systematic review will cover both the above questions and could potentially be beneficial for reconsidering the current practice of managing patients with aspirin in primary care

Methodological issues and recommendations for systematic reviews of prognostic studies: an example from cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND: Prognostic factors are associated with the risk of future health outcomes in individuals with a particular health condition. The prognostic ability of such factors is increasingly being assessed in both primary research and systematic reviews. Systematic review methodology in this area is continuing to evolve, reflected in variable approaches to key methodological aspects. The aim of this article was to (i) explore and compare the methodology of systematic reviews of prognostic factors undertaken for the same clinical question, (ii) to discuss implications for review findings, and (iii) to present recommendations on what might be considered to be ‘good practice’ approaches. METHODS: The sample was comprised of eight systematic reviews addressing the same clinical question, namely whether ‘aspirin resistance’ (a potential prognostic factor) has prognostic utility relative to future vascular events in patients on aspirin therapy for secondary prevention. A detailed comparison of methods around study identification, study selection, quality assessment, approaches to analysis, and reporting of findings was undertaken and the implications discussed. These were summarised into key considerations that may be transferable to future systematic reviews of prognostic factors. RESULTS: Across systematic reviews addressing the same clinical question, there were considerable differences in the numbers of studies identified and overlap between included studies, which could only partially be explained by different study eligibility criteria. Incomplete reporting and differences in terminology within primary studies hampered study identification and selection process across reviews. Quality assessment was highly variable and only one systematic review considered a checklist for studies of prognostic questions. There was inconsistency between reviews in approaches towards analysis, synthesis, addressing heterogeneity and reporting of results. CONCLUSIONS: Different methodological approaches may ultimately affect the findings and interpretation of systematic reviews of prognostic research, with implications for clinical decision-making. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/2046-4053-3-140) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users