Frequency and Clinical Determinants of Dementia after Ischemic Stroke

Objective: To investigate the frequency and clinical determinants of dementia after ischemic stroke. Methods: The authors administered neurologic, neuropsychological, and functional assessments to 453 patients (age 72.0 ± 8.3 years) 3 months after ischemic stroke. They diagnosed dementia using modified Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3rd ed., revised criteria requiring deficits in memory and two or more additional cognitive domains as well as functional impairment. Results: The authors diagnosed dementia in 119 of the 453 patients (26.3%). Regarding dementia subtypes, 68 of the 119 patients (57.1%) were diagnosed with vascular dementia, 46 patients (38.7%) were diagnosed with AD with concomitant stroke, and 5 patients (4.2%) had dementia for other reasons. Logistic regression suggested that dementia was associated with a major hemispheral stroke syndrome (OR 3.0), left hemisphere (OR 2.1) and right hemisphere (OR 1.8) infarct locations versus brainstem/cerebellar locations, infarcts in the pooled anterior and posterior cerebral artery territories versus infarcts in other vascular territories (OR 1.7), diabetes mellitus (OR 1.8), prior stroke (OR 1.7), age 80 years or older (OR 12.7) and 70 to 79 years (OR 3.9) versus 60 to 69 years, 8 or fewer years of education (OR 4.1) and 9 to 12 years of education (OR 3.0) versus 13 or more years of education, black race (OR 2.6) and Hispanic ethnicity (OR 3.1) versus white race, and northern Manhattan residence (OR 1.6). Conclusions: Dementia is frequent after ischemic stroke, occurring in one-fourth of the elderly patients in the authors’ cohort. The clinical determinants of dementia include the location and severity of the presenting stroke, vascular risk factors such as diabetes mellitus and prior stroke, and host characteristics such as older age, fewer years of education, and nonwhite race/ethnicity. The results also suggest that concomitant AD plays an etiologic role in approximately one-third of cases of dementia after stroke

Bleeding Risk and Antithrombotic Strategy in Patients With Sinus Rhythm and Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Treated With Warfarin or Aspirin

We sought to assess the performance of existing bleeding risk scores, such as the Hypertension, Abnormal Renal/Liver Function, Stroke, Bleeding History or Predisposition, Labile INR, Elderly, Drugs/Alcohol Concomitantly (HAS-BLED) score or the Outpatient Bleeding Risk Index (OBRI), in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in sinus rhythm (SR) treated with warfarin or aspirin. We calculated HAS-BLED and OBRI risk scores for 2,305 patients with HFrEF in SR enrolled in the Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction trial. Proportional hazards models were used to test whether each score predicted major bleeding, and comparison of different risk scores was performed using Harell C-statistic and net reclassification improvement index. For the warfarin arm, both scores predicted bleeding risk, with OBRI having significantly greater C-statistic (0.72 vs 0.61; p = 0.03) compared to HAS-BLED, although the net reclassification improvement for comparing OBRI to HAS-BLED was not significant (0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.18 to 0.37). Performance of the OBRI and HAS-BLED risk scores was similar for the aspirin arm. For participants with OBRI scores of 0 to 1, warfarin compared with aspirin reduced ischemic stroke (hazard ratio [HR] 0.51, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.98, p = 0.042) without significantly increasing major bleeding (HR 1.24, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.30, p = 0.51). For those with OBRI score of ≥2, there was a trend for reduced ischemic stroke with warfarin compared to aspirin (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.15, p = 0.12), but major bleeding was increased (HR 4.04, 95% CI 1.99 to 8.22, p <0.001). In conclusion, existing bleeding risk scores can identify bleeding risk in patients with HFrEF in SR and could be tested for potentially identifying patients with a favorable risk/benefit profile for antithrombotic therapy with warfarin

CHA2 DS2 -VASc score and adverse outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and sinus rhythm

AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine whether the CHA2 DS2 -VASc score can predict adverse outcomes such as death, ischaemic stroke, and major haemorrhage, in patients with systolic heart failure in sinus rhythm. METHODS AND RESULTS: CHA2 DS2 -VASc scores were calculated for 1101 patients randomized to warfarin and 1123 patients randomized to aspirin. Adverse outcomes were defined as death or ischaemic stroke, death alone, ischaemic stroke alone, and major haemorrhage. Using proportional hazards models, we found that each 1-point increase in the CHA2 DS2 -VASc score was associated with increased hazard of death or ischaemic stroke events [hazard ratio (HR) for the warfarin arm = 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13-1.30, P < 0.001; for aspirin, HR = 1.20, 95% CI 1.11-1.29, P < 0.001]. Similar increased hazards for higher CHA2 DS2 -VASc scores were observed for death alone, ischaemic stroke alone, and major haemorrhage. Overall performance of the CHA2 DS2 -VASc score was assessed using c-statistics for full models containing the risk score, treatment assignment, and score-treatment interaction, with the c-statistics for the full models ranging from 0.57 for death to 0.68 for major haemorrhage. CONCLUSIONS: The CHA2 DS2 -VASc score predicted adverse outcomes in patients with systolic heart failure in sinus rhythm, with modest prediction accuracy

Effectiveness of a Third Dose of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna Vaccines in Preventing COVID-19 Hospitalization Among Immunocompetent and Immunocompromised Adults — United States, August–December 2021

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech] and mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) provide protection against infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and are highly effective against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among eligible persons who receive 2 doses (1,2). However, vaccine effectiveness (VE) among persons with immunocompromising conditions* is lower than that among immunocompetent persons (2), and VE declines after several months among all persons (3). On August 12, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a third mRNA vaccine dose as part of a primary series ≥28 days after dose 2 for persons aged ≥12 years with immunocompromising conditions, and, on November 19, 2021, as a booster dose for all adults aged ≥18 years at least 6 months after dose 2, changed to ≥5 months after dose 2 on January 3, 2022 (4,5,6). Among 2,952 adults (including 1,385 COVID-19 case-patients and 1,567 COVID-19-negative controls) hospitalized at 21 U.S. hospitals during August 19-December 15, 2021, effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was compared between adults eligible for but who had not received a third vaccine dose (1,251) and vaccine-eligible adults who received a third dose ≥7 days before illness onset (312). Among 1,875 adults without immunocompromising conditions (including 1,065 [57%] unvaccinated, 679 [36%] 2-dose recipients, and 131 [7%] 3-dose [booster] recipients), VE against COVID-19 hospitalization was higher among those who received a booster dose (97%; 95% CI = 95%-99%) compared with that among 2-dose recipients (82%; 95% CI = 77%-86%) (p &lt;0.001). Among 1,077 adults with immunocompromising conditions (including 324 [30%] unvaccinated, 572 [53%] 2-dose recipients, and 181 [17%] 3-dose recipients), VE was higher among those who received a third dose to complete a primary series (88%; 95% CI = 81%-93%) compared with 2-dose recipients (69%; 95% CI = 57%-78%) (p &lt;0.001). Administration of a third COVID-19 mRNA vaccine dose as part of a primary series among immunocompromised adults, or as a booster dose among immunocompetent adults, provides improved protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization

Sustained Effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna Vaccines Against COVID-19 Associated Hospitalizations Among Adults — United States, March–July 2021

Real-world evaluations have demonstrated high effectiveness of vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations (1-4) measured shortly after vaccination; longer follow-up is needed to assess durability of protection. In an evaluation at 21 hospitals in 18 states, the duration of mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations was assessed among adults aged ≥18 years. Among 3,089 hospitalized adults (including 1,194 COVID-19 case-patients and 1,895 non-COVID-19 control-patients), the median age was 59 years, 48.7% were female, and 21.1% had an immunocompromising condition. Overall, 141 (11.8%) case-patients and 988 (52.1%) controls were fully vaccinated (defined as receipt of the second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines ≥14 days before illness onset), with a median interval of 65 days (range&nbsp;=&nbsp;14-166 days) after receipt of second dose. VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization during the full surveillance period was 86% (95% confidence interval [CI]&nbsp;=&nbsp;82%-88%) overall and 90% (95% CI&nbsp;=&nbsp;87%-92%) among adults without immunocompromising conditions. VE against COVID-19- associated hospitalization was 86% (95% CI&nbsp;=&nbsp;82%-90%) 2-12 weeks and 84% (95% CI&nbsp;=&nbsp;77%-90%) 13-24 weeks from receipt of the second vaccine dose, with no significant change between these periods (p = 0.854). Whole genome sequencing of 454 case-patient specimens found that 242 (53.3%) belonged to the B.1.1.7 (Alpha) lineage and 74 (16.3%) to the B.1.617.2 (Delta) lineage. Effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was sustained over a 24-week period, including among groups at higher risk for severe COVID-19; ongoing monitoring is needed as new SARS-CoV-2 variants emerge. To reduce their risk for hospitalization, all eligible persons should be offered COVID-19 vaccination

Vaccine effectiveness of primary series and booster doses against covid-19 associated hospital admissions in the United States: living test negative design study

AbstractObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of a primary covid-19 vaccine series plus booster doses with a primary series alone for the prevention of hospital admission with omicron related covid-19 in the United States.DesignMulticenter observational case-control study with a test negative design.SettingHospitals in 18 US states.Participants4760 adults admitted to one of 21 hospitals with acute respiratory symptoms between 26 December 2021 and 30 June 2022, a period when the omicron variant was dominant. Participants included 2385 (50.1%) patients with laboratory confirmed covid-19 (cases) and 2375 (49.9%) patients who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 (controls).Main outcome measuresThe main outcome was vaccine effectiveness against hospital admission with covid-19 for a primary series plus booster doses and a primary series alone by comparing the odds of being vaccinated with each of these regimens versus being unvaccinated among cases versus controls. Vaccine effectiveness analyses were stratified by immunosuppression status (immunocompetent, immunocompromised). The primary analysis evaluated all covid-19 vaccine types combined, and secondary analyses evaluated specific vaccine products.ResultsOverall, median age of participants was 64 years (interquartile range 52-75 years), 994 (20.8%) were immunocompromised, 85 (1.8%) were vaccinated with a primary series plus two boosters, 1367 (28.7%) with a primary series plus one booster, and 1875 (39.3%) with a primary series alone, and 1433 (30.1%) were unvaccinated. Among immunocompetent participants, vaccine effectiveness for prevention of hospital admission with omicron related covid-19 for a primary series plus two boosters was 63% (95% confidence interval 37% to 78%), a primary series plus one booster was 65% (58% to 71%), and for a primary series alone was 37% (25% to 47%) (P<0.001 for the pooled boosted regimens compared with a primary series alone). Vaccine effectiveness was higher for a boosted regimen than for a primary series alone for both mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech): 73% (44% to 87%) for primary series plus two boosters, 64% (55% to 72%) for primary series plus one booster, and 36% (21% to 48%) for primary series alone (P<0.001); mRNA-1273 (Moderna): 68% (17% to 88%) for primary series plus two boosters, 65% (55% to 73%) for primary series plus one booster, and 41% (25% to 54%) for primary series alone (P=0.001)). Among immunocompromised patients, vaccine effectiveness for a primary series plus one booster was 69% (31% to 86%) and for a primary series alone was 49% (30% to 63%) (P=0.04).ConclusionDuring the first six months of 2022 in the US, booster doses of a covid-19 vaccine provided additional benefit beyond a primary vaccine series alone for preventing hospital admissions with omicron related covid-19.Readers’ noteThis article is a living test negative design study that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used