Rosuvastatin for primary prevention in patients with European systematic coronary risk evaluation risk ≥5% or Framingham risk >20%: post hoc analyses of the JUPITER trial requested by European health authorities

Aims: On the basis of the JUPITER trial, European health authorities recently approved the use of rosuvastatin to reduce first major cardiovascular events among ‘high' global risk primary prevention patients defined either by Framingham risk score >20% or European systematic coronary risk evaluation (SCORE) ≥5%. However, as these are post hoc analyses, data describing these subgroups have not previously been available to the clinical community. Methods and results: We randomized 17 802 apparently healthy men aged ≥50 and women ≥60 with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) 20% or SCORE risk ≥5%. During 1.8-year median follow-up (maximum 5 years) of patients with Framingham risk >20%, the rate of myocardial infarction/stroke/cardiovascular death was 9.4 and 18.2 per 1000 person-years in rosuvastatin and placebo-allocated patients, respectively [hazard ratio (HR): 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.27–0.93, P = 0.028]. Among patients with SCORE risk ≥5%, the corresponding rates were 6.9 and 12.0 using a model extrapolating risk for age ≥65 years (HR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.43–0.78, P = 0.0003) and rates were 5.9 and 12.7 when risk for age was capped at 65 years (HR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.32–0.68, P 20% or SCORE risk ≥5%), but LDL-C levels not requiring pharmacologic treatment, rosuvastatin 20 mg significantly reduced major cardiovascular events. ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT0023968

Methods of implementation of evidence-based stroke care in Europe : European implementation score collaboration

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Differences in stroke care and outcomes reported in Europe may reflect different degrees of implementation of evidence-based interventions. We evaluated strategies for implementing research evidence into stroke care in 10 European countries. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed and administered through face-to-face interviews with key informants. Implementation strategies were investigated considering 3 levels (macro, meso, and micro, eg, policy, organization, patients/professionals) identified by the framing analysis, and different settings (primary, hospital, and specialist) of stroke care. Similarities and differences among countries were evaluated using the categorical principal components analysis. RESULTS: Implementation methods reported by ≥7 countries included nonmandatory policies, public financial incentives, continuing professional education, distribution of educational material, educational meetings and campaigns, guidelines, opinion leaders', and stroke patients associations' activities. Audits were present in 6 countries at national level; national and regional regulations in 4 countries. Private financial incentives, reminders, and educational outreach visits were reported only in 2 countries. At national level, the first principal component of categorical principal components analysis separated England, France, Scotland, and Sweden, all with positive object scores, from the other countries. Belgium and Lithuania obtained the lowest scores. At regional level, England, France, Germany, Italy, and Sweden had positive scores in the first principal component, whereas Belgium, Lithuania, Poland, and Scotland showed negative scores. Spain was in an intermediate position. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a novel method to assess different domains of implementation in stroke care. Clear variations were observed among European countries. The new tool may be used elsewhere for future contributions

Systematizing Confidence in Open Research and Evidence (SCORE)

Assessing the credibility of research claims is a central, continuous, and laborious part of the scientific process. Credibility assessment strategies range from expert judgment to aggregating existing evidence to systematic replication efforts. Such assessments can require substantial time and effort. Research progress could be accelerated if there were rapid, scalable, accurate credibility indicators to guide attention and resource allocation for further assessment. The SCORE program is creating and validating algorithms to provide confidence scores for research claims at scale. To investigate the viability of scalable tools, teams are creating: a database of claims from papers in the social and behavioral sciences; expert and machine generated estimates of credibility; and, evidence of reproducibility, robustness, and replicability to validate the estimates. Beyond the primary research objective, the data and artifacts generated from this program will be openly shared and provide an unprecedented opportunity to examine research credibility and evidence