The Changing Landscape for Stroke\ua0Prevention in AF: Findings From the GLORIA-AF Registry Phase 2

Background GLORIA-AF (Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) is a prospective, global registry program describing antithrombotic treatment patterns in patients with newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke. Phase 2 began when dabigatran, the first non\u2013vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC), became available. Objectives This study sought to describe phase 2 baseline data and compare these with the pre-NOAC era collected during phase 1. Methods During phase 2, 15,641 consenting patients were enrolled (November 2011 to December 2014); 15,092 were eligible. This pre-specified cross-sectional analysis describes eligible patients\u2019 baseline characteristics. Atrial fibrillation disease characteristics, medical outcomes, and concomitant diseases and medications were collected. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results Of the total patients, 45.5% were female; median age was 71 (interquartile range: 64, 78) years. Patients were from Europe (47.1%), North America (22.5%), Asia (20.3%), Latin America (6.0%), and the Middle East/Africa (4.0%). Most had high stroke risk (CHA2DS2-VASc [Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age  6575 years, Diabetes mellitus, previous Stroke, Vascular disease, Age 65 to 74 years, Sex category] score  652; 86.1%); 13.9% had moderate risk (CHA2DS2-VASc = 1). Overall, 79.9% received oral anticoagulants, of whom 47.6% received NOAC and 32.3% vitamin K antagonists (VKA); 12.1% received antiplatelet agents; 7.8% received no antithrombotic treatment. For comparison, the proportion of phase 1 patients (of N = 1,063 all eligible) prescribed VKA was 32.8%, acetylsalicylic acid 41.7%, and no therapy 20.2%. In Europe in phase 2, treatment with NOAC was more common than VKA (52.3% and 37.8%, respectively); 6.0% of patients received antiplatelet treatment; and 3.8% received no antithrombotic treatment. In North America, 52.1%, 26.2%, and 14.0% of patients received NOAC, VKA, and antiplatelet drugs, respectively; 7.5% received no antithrombotic treatment. NOAC use was less common in Asia (27.7%), where 27.5% of patients received VKA, 25.0% antiplatelet drugs, and 19.8% no antithrombotic treatment. Conclusions The baseline data from GLORIA-AF phase 2 demonstrate that in newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients, NOAC have been highly adopted into practice, becoming more frequently prescribed than VKA in Europe and North America. Worldwide, however, a large proportion of patients remain undertreated, particularly in Asia and North America. (Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation [GLORIA-AF]; NCT01468701

NIH roundtable on emergency trauma research

Study objective: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) formed an NIH Task Force on Research in Emergency Medicine to enhance NIH support for emergency care research. The NIH Trauma Research Roundtable was convened on June 22 to 23, 2009. The objectives of the roundtable are to identify key research questions essential to advancing the scientific underpinnings of emergency trauma care and to discuss the barriers and best means to advance research by exploring the role of trauma research networks and collaboration between NIH and the emergency trauma care community. Methods: Before the roundtable, the emergency care domains to be discussed were selected and experts in each of the fields were invited to participate in the roundtable. Domain experts were asked to identify research priorities and challenges and separate them into mechanistic, translational, and clinical categories. During and after the conference, the lists were circulated among the participants and revised to reach a consensus. Results: Emergency trauma care research is characterized by focus on the timing, sequence, and time sensitivity of disease processes and treatment effects. Rapidly identifying the phenotype of patients on the time spectrum of acuity and severity after injury and the mechanistic reasons for heterogeneity in outcome are important challenges in emergency trauma research. Other research priorities include the need to elucidate the timing, sequence, and duration of causal molecular and cellular events involved in time-critical injuries, and the development of treatments capable of halting or reversing them; the need for novel experimental models of acute injury; the need to assess the effect of development and aging on the postinjury response; and the need to understand why there are regional differences in outcomes after injury. Important barriers to emergency care research include a limited number of trained investigators and experienced mentors, limited research infrastructure and support, and regulatory hurdles. Conclusion: The science of emergency trauma care may be advanced by facilitating the following: (1) development of an acute injury template for clinical research; (2) developing emergency trauma clinical research networks; (3) integrating emergency trauma research into Clinical and Translational Science Awards; (4) developing emergency carespecific initiatives within the existing structure of NIH institutes and centers; (5) involving acute trauma and emergency specialists in grant review and research advisory processes; (6) supporting learn-phase or small, clinical trials; (7) performing research to address ethical and regulatory issues; and (8) training emergency care investigators with research training programs. © 2010 American College of Emergency Physicians

NIH roundtable on emergency trauma research

Study objective: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) formed an NIH Task Force on Research in Emergency Medicine to enhance NIH support for emergency care research. The NIH Trauma Research Roundtable was convened on June 22 to 23, 2009. The objectives of the roundtable are to identify key research questions essential to advancing the scientific underpinnings of emergency trauma care and to discuss the barriers and best means to advance research by exploring the role of trauma research networks and collaboration between NIH and the emergency trauma care community. Methods: Before the roundtable, the emergency care domains to be discussed were selected and experts in each of the fields were invited to participate in the roundtable. Domain experts were asked to identify research priorities and challenges and separate them into mechanistic, translational, and clinical categories. During and after the conference, the lists were circulated among the participants and revised to reach a consensus. Results: Emergency trauma care research is characterized by focus on the timing, sequence, and time sensitivity of disease processes and treatment effects. Rapidly identifying the phenotype of patients on the time spectrum of acuity and severity after injury and the mechanistic reasons for heterogeneity in outcome are important challenges in emergency trauma research. Other research priorities include the need to elucidate the timing, sequence, and duration of causal molecular and cellular events involved in time-critical injuries, and the development of treatments capable of halting or reversing them; the need for novel experimental models of acute injury; the need to assess the effect of development and aging on the postinjury response; and the need to understand why there are regional differences in outcomes after injury. Important barriers to emergency care research include a limited number of trained investigators and experienced mentors, limited research infrastructure and support, and regulatory hurdles. Conclusion: The science of emergency trauma care may be advanced by facilitating the following: (1) development of an acute injury template for clinical research; (2) developing emergency trauma clinical research networks; (3) integrating emergency trauma research into Clinical and Translational Science Awards; (4) developing emergency carespecific initiatives within the existing structure of NIH institutes and centers; (5) involving acute trauma and emergency specialists in grant review and research advisory processes; (6) supporting learn-phase or small, clinical trials; (7) performing research to address ethical and regulatory issues; and (8) training emergency care investigators with research training programs. © 2010 American College of Emergency Physicians