Decompressive craniectomy plus best medical treatment versus best medical treatment alone for spontaneous severe deep supratentorial intracerebral haemorrhage: a randomised controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether decompressive craniectomy improves clinical outcome for people with spontaneous severe deep intracerebral haemorrhage. The SWITCH trial aimed to assess whether decompressive craniectomy plus best medical treatment in these patients improves outcome at 6 months compared to best medical treatment alone. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, open-label, assessor-blinded trial conducted in 42 stroke centres in Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland, adults (18-75 years) with a severe intracerebral haemorrhage involving the basal ganglia or thalamus were randomly assigned to receive either decompressive craniectomy plus best medical treatment or best medical treatment alone. The primary outcome was a score of 5-6 on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 180 days, analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClincalTrials.gov, NCT02258919, and is completed. FINDINGS: SWITCH had to be stopped early due to lack of funding. Between Oct 6, 2014, and April 4, 2023, 201 individuals were randomly assigned and 197 gave delayed informed consent (96 decompressive craniectomy plus best medical treatment, 101 best medical treatment). 63 (32%) were women and 134 (68%) men, the median age was 61 years (IQR 51-68), and the median haematoma volume 57 mL (IQR 44-74). 42 (44%) of 95 participants assigned to decompressive craniectomy plus best medical treatment and 55 (58%) assigned to best medical treatment alone had an mRS of 5-6 at 180 days (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 0·77, 95% CI 0·59 to 1·01, adjusted risk difference [aRD] -13%, 95% CI -26 to 0, p=0·057). In the per-protocol analysis, 36 (47%) of 77 participants in the decompressive craniectomy plus best medical treatment group and 44 (60%) of 73 in the best medical treatment alone group had an mRS of 5-6 (aRR 0·76, 95% CI 0·58 to 1·00, aRD -15%, 95% CI -28 to 0). Severe adverse events occurred in 42 (41%) of 103 participants receiving decompressive craniectomy plus best medical treatment and 41 (44%) of 94 receiving best medical treatment. INTERPRETATION: SWITCH provides weak evidence that decompressive craniectomy plus best medical treatment might be superior to best medical treatment alone in people with severe deep intracerebral haemorrhage. The results do not apply to intracerebral haemorrhage in other locations, and survival is associated with severe disability in both groups. FUNDING: Swiss National Science Foundation, Swiss Heart Foundation, Inselspital Stiftung, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

Impact of proton pump inhibitors on efficacy of antiplatelet strategies with ticagrelor or aspirin after percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the GLOBAL LEADERS trial.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have suggested that proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may reduce the antiplatelet effects of clopidogrel and/or aspirin, possibly leading to cardiovascular events. AIMS: We aimed to investigate the association between PPI and clinical outcomes in patients treated with ticagrelor monotherapy or conventional antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: This is a subanalysis of the randomized GLOBAL LEADERS trial, comparing the experimental antiplatelet arm (23-month ticagrelor monotherapy following 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy [DAPT]) with the reference arm (12-month aspirin monotherapy following 12-month DAPT) after PCI. Patient-oriented composite endpoints (POCEs: all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization) and its components were assessed stratified by PPI use as a time-dependent covariate in patients with the experiment or reference antiplatelet arm. RESULTS: Among 15,839 patients, 2115 patients (13.5%) experienced POCE at 2 years. In the reference arm, the use of PPIs was independently associated with POCE (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12-1.44) and its individual components, whereas it was not in the experimental arm (HR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.92-1.19; pinteraction = 0.035). During the second-year follow-up, patients taking aspirin with PPIs had a significantly higher risk of POCE compared to those on aspirin without PPIs (HR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.27-1.94), whereas the risk did not differ significantly irrespective of PPI in ticagrelor monotherapy group (HR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.83-1.28; pinteraction = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to conventional antiplatelet strategy, there were no evidence suggesting the interaction between ticagrelor monotherapy and PPIs on increased cardiovascular events, which should be confirmed in further studies. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov.

Design details for overdose education and take-home naloxone kits: Codesign with family medicine, emergency department, addictions medicine and community.

INTRODUCTION: Overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) programmes equip and train people who are likely to witness an opioid overdose to respond with effective first aid interventions. Despite OEND expansion across North America, overdose rates are increasing, raising questions about how to improve OEND programmes. We conducted an iterative series of codesign stakeholder workshops to develop a prototype for take-home naloxone (THN)-kit (i.e., two doses of intranasal naloxone and training on how to administer it). METHODS: We recruited people who use opioids, frontline healthcare providers and public health representatives to participate in codesign workshops covering questions related to THN-kit prototypes, training on how to use it, and implementation, including refinement of design artefacts using personas and journey maps. Completed over 9 months, the workshops were audio-recorded and transcribed with visible results of the workshops (i.e., sticky notes, sketches) archived. We used thematic analyses of these materials to identify design requirements for THN-kits and training. RESULTS: We facilitated 13 codesign workshops to identify and address gaps in existing opioid overdose education training and THN-kits and emphasize timely response and stigma in future THN-kit design. Using an iterative process, we created 15 prototypes, 3 candidate prototypes and a final prototype THN-kit from the synthesis of the codesign workshops. CONCLUSION: The final prototype is available for a variety of implementation and evaluation processes. The THN-kit offers an integrated solution combining ultra-brief training animation and physical packaging of nasal naloxone to be distributed in family practice clinics, emergency departments, addiction medicine clinics and community settings. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The codesign process was deliberately structured to involve community members (the public), with multiple opportunities for public contribution. In addition, patient/public participation was a principle for the management and structuring of the research team.

Adherence at 2 years with distribution of essential medicines at no charge: The CLEAN Meds randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to medicines is low for a variety of reasons, including the cost borne by patients. Some jurisdictions publicly fund medicines for the general population, but many jurisdictions do not, and such policies are contentious. To our knowledge, no trials studying free access to a wide range of medicines have been conducted. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 786 primary care patients who reported not taking medicines due to cost between June 1, 2016 and April 28, 2017 to either free distribution of essential medicines (n = 395) or to usual medicine access (n = 391). The trial was conducted in Ontario, Canada, where hospital care and physician services are publicly funded for the general population but medicines are not. The trial population was mostly female (56%), younger than 65 years (83%), white (66%), and had a low income from wages as the primary source (56%). The primary outcome was medicine adherence after 2 years. Secondary outcomes included control of diabetes, blood pressure, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol in patients taking relevant treatments and healthcare costs over 2 years. Adherence to all appropriate prescribed medicines was 38.7% in the free distribution group and 28.6% in the usual access group after 2 years (absolute difference 10.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.3 to 16.9, p = 0.004). There were no statistically significant differences in control of diabetes (hemoglobin A1c 0.27; 95% CI -0.25 to 0.79, p = 0.302), systolic blood pressure (-3.9; 95% CI -9.9 to 2.2, p = 0.210), or LDL cholesterol (0.26; 95% CI -0.08 to 0.60, p = 0.130) based on available data. Total healthcare costs over 2 years were lower with free distribution (difference in median CAN$1,117; 95% CI CAN$445 to CAN$1,778, p = 0.006). In the free distribution group, 51 participants experienced a serious adverse event, while 68 participants in the usual access group experienced a serious adverse event (p = 0.091). Participants were not blinded, and some outcomes depended on participant reports. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that free distribution of essential medicines to patients with cost-related nonadherence substantially increased adherence, did not affect surrogate health outcomes, and reduced total healthcare costs over 2 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02744963.

Tramadol for osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Tramadol is often prescribed to treat pain and is associated physical disability in osteoarthritis (OA). Due to the pharmacologic mechanism of tramadol, it may lead to fewer associated adverse effects (i.e. gastrointestinal bleeding or renal problems) compared to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). This is an update of a Cochrane Review originally published in 2006. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of oral tramadol or tramadol combined with acetaminophen or NSAIDs in people with osteoarthritis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase databases, as well as the US National Institutes of Health and World Health Organization trial registries up to February 2018. We searched the LILACS database up to August 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of tramadol, or tramadol in combination with acetaminophen (paracetamol) or NSAIDs versus placebo or any comparator in people with osteoarthritis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 RCTs (11 more than the previous review) of which 21 RCTs were included in meta-analyses for 3871 participants randomized to tramadol alone or tramadol in combination with another analgesic and 2625 participants randomized to placebo or active control. Seventeen studies evaluated tramadol alone and five evaluated tramadol plus acetaminophen. Thirteen studies used placebo controls and eleven studies used active controls (two trials had both placebo and active arms). The dose of tramadol ranged from 37.5 mg to 400 mg daily; all doses were pooled. Most trials were multicenter with a mean duration of two months. Participants were predominantly women with hip or knee osteoarthritis, with a mean age of 63 years and moderate to severe pain. There was a high risk of selection bias as only four trials reported both adequate sequence generation and allocation concealment. There was a low risk for performance bias as most studies blinded participants. There was a high risk of attrition bias as 10/22 trials showed incomplete outcome data. Most of the trials were funded by the pharmaceutical industry.Moderate quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias) indicated that tramadol alone and in combination with acetaminophen had no important benefit on pain reduction compared to placebo control (tramadol alone: 4% absolute improvement, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3% to 5%; 8 studies, 3972 participants; tramadol in combination with acetaminophen: 4% absolute improvement, 95% CI 2% to 6%; 2 studies, 614 participants).Fifteen out of 100 people in the tramadol group improved by 20% (which corresponded to a clinically important difference in pain) compared to 10/100 in the placebo group (5% absolute improvement). Twelve out of 100 people improved by 20% in the tramadol in combination with acetaminophen group compared to 7/100 in the placebo group (5% absolute improvement).Moderate quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias) indicated that tramadol alone and in combination with acetaminophen led to no important benefit in physical function compared to placebo (tramadol alone: 4% absolute improvement, 95% CI 2% to 6%; 5 studies, 2550 participants; tramadol in combination with acetaminophen: 4% absolute improvement, 95% CI 2% to 7%; 2 studies, 614 participants).Twenty-one out of 100 people in the tramadol group improved by 20% (which corresponded to a clinically important difference in physical function) compared to 16/100 in the placebo group (5% absolute improvement). Fifteen out of 100 people improved by 20% in the tramadol in combination with acetaminophen group compared to 10/100 in the placebo group (5% absolute improvement).Moderate quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias) indicated that, compared to placebo, there was a greater risk of developing adverse events with tramadol alone (risk ratio (RR) 1.34, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.46; 4 studies, 2039 participants) and tramadol in combination with acetaminophen compared to placebo (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.76; 1 study, 308 participants). This corresponded to a 17% increase (95% CI 12% to 23%) with tramadol alone and 22% increase (95% CI 8% to 41%) with tramadol in combination with acetaminophen.The three most frequent adverse events were nausea, dizziness and tiredness. Moderate quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias) indicated that there was a greater risk of withdrawing from the study because of adverse events with tramadol alone compared to placebo (RR 2.64, 95% CI 2.17 to 3.20; 9 studies, 4533 participants), which corresponded to a 12% increase (95% CI 9% to 16%).Low quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency) indicated that there was a greater risk of withdrawing from the study because of adverse events with tramadol in combination with acetaminophen compared to placebo (RR 2.78, 95% CI 1.50 to 5.16; 2 studies, 614 participants), which corresponded to a 8% absolute improvement (95% CI 2% to 19%).Low quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision) indicated that there was a greater risk of developing serious adverse events with tramadol alone compared to placebo (110/2459 participants with tramadol compared to 22/1153 participants with placebo; RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.84; 7 studies, 3612 participants), which corresponded to a 1% increase (95% CI 0% to 4%). There were no serious adverse events reported in one small study (15 participants) of tramadol with acetaminophen compared to placebo. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate quality evidence indicates that compared to placebo, tramadol alone or in combination with acetaminophen probably has no important benefit on mean pain or function in people with osteoarthritis, although slightly more people in the tramadol group report an important improvement (defined as 20% or more). Moderate quality evidence shows that adverse events probably cause substantially more participants to stop taking tramadol. The increase in serious adverse events with tramadol is less certain, due to the small number of events.

Effect of Free Medicine Distribution on Health Care Costs in Canada Over 3 Years: A Secondary Analysis of the CLEAN Meds Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Few interventions are proven to reduce total health care costs, and addressing cost-related nonadherence has the potential to do so. Objective: To determine the effect of eliminating out-of-pocket medication fees on total health care costs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized clinical trial using a prespecified outcome took place across 9 primary care sites in Ontario, Canada (6 in Toronto and 3 in rural areas), where health care services are generally publicly funded. Adult patients (≥18 years old) reporting cost-related nonadherence to medicines in the past 12 months were recruited between June 1, 2016, and April 28, 2017, and followed up until April 28, 2020. Data analysis was completed in 2021. Interventions: Access to a comprehensive list of 128 medicines commonly prescribed in ambulatory care with no out-of-pocket costs for 3 years vs usual medicine access. Main Outcome and Measures: Total publicly funded health care costs over 3 years, including costs of hospitalizations. Health care costs were determined using administrative data from Ontario's single-payer health care system, and all costs are reported in Canadian dollars with adjustments for inflation. Results: A total of 747 participants from 9 primary care sites were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 51 [14] years; 421 [56.4%] female). Free medicine distribution was associated with a lower median total health care spending over 3 years of $1641 (95% CI, $454-$2792; P = .006). Mean total spending was $4465 (95% CI, -$944 to $9874) lower over the 3-year period. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, eliminating out-of-pocket medication expenses for patients with cost-related nonadherence in primary care was associated with lower health care spending over 3 years. These findings suggest that eliminating out-of-pocket medication costs for patients could reduce overall costs of health care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02744963.

Ticagrelor Monotherapy or Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation: Per-Protocol Analysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS Trial.

Background In the GLOBAL LEADERS trial, ticagrelor monotherapy beyond 1 month compared with standard antiplatelet regimens after coronary stent implantation did not improve outcomes at intention-to-treat analysis. Considerable differences in treatment adherence between the experimental and control groups may have affected the intention-to-treat results. In this reanalysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial, we compared the experimental and control treatment strategies in a per-protocol analysis of patients who did not deviate from the study protocol. Methods and Results Baseline and postrandomization information were used to classify whether and when patients were deviating from the study protocol. With logistic regressions, we derived time-varying inverse probabilities of nondeviation from protocol to reconstruct the trial population without protocol deviation. The primary end point was a composite of all-cause mortality or nonfatal Q-wave myocardial infarction at 2 years. At 2-year follow-up, 1103 (13.8%) of 7980 patients in the experimental group and 785 (9.8%) of 7988 patients in the control group qualified as protocol deviators. At per-protocol analysis, the rate ratio for the primary end point was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.75-1.03; P=0.10) on the basis of 274 versus 325 events in the experimental versus control group. The rate ratio for the key safety end point of major bleeding was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.79-1.26; P=0.99). The per-protocol and intention-to-treat effect estimates were overall consistent. Conclusions Among patients who complied with the study protocol in the GLOBAL LEADERS trial, ticagrelor plus aspirin for 1 month followed by ticagrelor monotherapy was not superior to 1-year standard dual antiplatelet therapy followed by aspirin alone at 2 years after coronary stenting. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01813435.

A Web-Based Health Application to Translate Nutrition Therapy for Cardiovascular Risk Reduction in Primary Care (PortfolioDiet.app): Quality Improvement and Usability Testing Study.

BACKGROUND: The Portfolio Diet, or Dietary Portfolio, is a therapeutic dietary pattern that combines cholesterol-lowering foods to manage dyslipidemia for the prevention of cardiovascular disease. To translate the Portfolio Diet for primary care, we developed the PortfolioDiet.app as a patient and physician educational and engagement tool for PCs and smartphones. The PortfolioDiet.app is currently being used as an add-on therapy to the standard of care (usual care) for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in primary care. To enhance the adoption of this tool, it is important to ensure that the PortfolioDiet.app meets the needs of its target end users. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this project is to undertake user testing to inform modifications to the PortfolioDiet.app as part of ongoing engagement in quality improvement (QI). METHODS: We undertook a 2-phase QI project from February 2021 to September 2021. We recruited users by convenience sampling. Users included patients, family physicians, and dietitians, as well as nutrition and medical students. For both phases, users were asked to use the PortfolioDiet.app daily for 7 days. In phase 1, a mixed-form questionnaire was administered to evaluate the users' perceived acceptability, knowledge acquisition, and engagement with the PortfolioDiet.app. The questionnaire collected both quantitative and qualitative data, including 2 open-ended questions. The responses were used to inform modifications to the PortfolioDiet.app. In phase 2, the System Usability Scale was used to assess the usability of the updated PortfolioDiet.app, with a score higher than 70 being considered acceptable. RESULTS: A total of 30 and 19 users were recruited for phase 1 and phase 2, respectively. In phase 1, the PortfolioDiet.app increased users' perceived knowledge of the Portfolio Diet and influenced their perceived food choices. Limitations identified by users included challenges navigating to resources and profile settings, limited information on plant sterols, inaccuracies in points, timed-logout frustration, request for step-by-step pop-up windows, and request for a mobile app version; when looking at positive feedback, the recipe section was the most commonly praised feature. Between the project phases, 6 modifications were made to the PortfolioDiet.app to incorporate and address user feedback. At phase 2, the average System Usability Scale score was 85.39 (SD 11.47), with 100 being the best possible. CONCLUSIONS: By undertaking user testing of the PortfolioDiet.app, its limitations and strengths were able to be identified, informing modifications to the application, which resulted in a clinical tool that better meets users' needs. The PortfolioDiet.app educates users on the Portfolio Diet and is considered acceptable by users. Although further refinements to the PortfolioDiet.app will continue to be made before its evaluation in a clinical trial, the result of this QI project is an improved clinical tool.

Cash transfer during the COVID-19 pandemic: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a one-time cash transfer of $C1000 in people who are unable to physically distance due to insufficient income. DESIGN: Open-label, multi-centre, randomised superiority trial. SETTING: Seven primary care sites in Ontario, Canada; six urban sites associated with St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto and one in Manitoulin Island. PARTICIPANTS: 392 individuals who reported trouble affording basic necessities due to disruptions related to COVID-19. INTERVENTION: After random allocation, participants either received the cash transfer of $C1000 (n=196) or physical distancing guidelines alone (n=196). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the maximum number of symptoms consistent with COVID-19 over 14 days. Secondary outcomes were meeting clinical criteria for COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 presence, number of close contacts, general health and ability to afford basic necessities. RESULTS: The primary outcome of number of symptoms reported by participants did not differ between groups after 2 weeks (cash transfer, mean 1.6 vs 1.9, ratio of means 0.83; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.24). There were no statistically significant effects on secondary outcomes of the meeting COVID-19 clinical criteria (7.9% vs 12.8%; risk difference -0.05; 95% CI -0.11 to 0.01), SARS-CoV-2 presence (0.5% vs 0.6%; risk difference 0.00 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02), mean number of close contacts (3.5 vs 3.7; rate ratio 1.10; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.46), general health very good or excellent (60% vs 63%; risk difference -0.03 95% CI -0.14 to 0.08) and ability to make ends meet (52% vs 51%; risk difference 0.01 95% CI -0.10 to 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: A single cash transfer did not reduce the COVID-19 symptoms or improve the ability to afford necessities. Further studies are needed to determine whether some groups may benefit from financial supports and to determine if a higher level of support is beneficial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04359264.

Mortality after bleeding versus myocardial infarction in coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Bleeding is the principal safety concern of antithrombotic therapy and occurs frequently among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). AIMS: We aimed to evaluate the prognostic impact of bleeding on mortality compared with that of myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with CAD. METHODS: We searched Medline and Embase for studies that included patients with CAD and that reported both the association between the occurrence of bleeding and mortality, and between the occurrence of MI and mortality within the same population. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality associated with bleeding and MI were extracted and ratios of hazard ratios (rHRs) were pooled by using inverse variance weighted random effects meta-analyses. Early events included periprocedural or within 30-day events after revascularisation or acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Late events included spontaneous or beyond 30-day events after revascularisation or ACS. RESULTS: A total of 141,059 patients were included across 16 studies; 128,660 (91%) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. Major bleeding increased the risk of mortality to the same extent as MI (rHRsbleedingvsMI 1.10, 95% CI: 0.71-1.71, p=0.668). Early bleeding was associated with a higher risk of mortality than early MI (rHRsbleedingvsMI 1.46, 95% CI: 1.13-1.89, p=0.004), although this finding was not present when only randomised trials were included. Late bleeding was prognostically comparable to late MI (rHRsbleedingvsMI 1.14, 95% CI: 0.87-1.49, p=0.358). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with MI, major and late bleeding is associated with a similar increase in mortality, whereas early bleeding might have a stronger association with mortality.

'Ticagrelor alone vs. dual antiplatelet therapy from 1 month after drug-eluting coronary stenting among patients with STEMI': a post hoc analysis of the randomized GLOBAL LEADERS trial.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor monotherapy beyond 1 month and up to 24 months vs. standard 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and ticagrelor followed by aspirin monotherapy among ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the GLOBAL LEADERS trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a post hoc analysis of STEMI patients in the GLOBAL LEADERS trial comparing experimental ticagrelor monotherapy (1062 patients) with standard 12-month DAPT (1030 patients). We evaluated predefined primary and secondary endpoints in both treatment arms. Rates of net adverse clinical events (NACE), patient-oriented composite endpoints (POCE), and bleeding academic research consortium (BARC)-defined bleeding Type 3 or 5 were also evaluated. At 2 years, there were no significant differences in rates of primary endpoints in patients who had STEMI [0.89 (0.61-1.31)]. There were similar rates of NACE and POCE in both experimental and reference treatment groups at 2 years post-PCI [hazard ratio (HR) 0.96 (0.77-1.20) and 0.96 (0.77-1.21), respectively]. BARC 3 or 5 bleeding events were numerically less in experimental compared to reference treatment groups at 1 year [HR 0.55 (0.27-1.13)] and 2 years [0.61 (0.32-1.16)]. CONCLUSION: Presentation with STEMI has not influenced the incidence of GLOBAL LEADERS defined primary endpoints. There were no significant differences in rates of NACE, POCE, and BARC bleeding between the two treatment groups up to 2 years of follow-up. Although these findings should be viewed as exploratory, they expand the evidence on potential safety of aspirin-free antiplatelet strategies after PCI in STEMI.

Mixed methods feasibility study for the surviving opioid overdose with naloxone education and resuscitation (SOONER) trial.

AIM: We plan to conduct a randomised clinical trial among people likely to witness opioid overdose to compare the educational effectiveness of point-of-care naloxone distribution with best-available care, by observing participants' resuscitation skills in a simulated overdose. This mixed methods feasibility study aims to assess the effectiveness of recruitment and retention strategies and acceptability of study procedures. METHODS: We implemented candidate-driven recruitment strategies with verbal consent and destigmatizing study materials in a family practice, emergency department, and addictions service. People ≥16 years of age who are likely to witness overdose were randomized to point-of-care naloxone distribution or referral to an existing program. We evaluated participant skills as a responder to a simulated overdose 3-14 days post-recruitment. Retention strategies included flexible scheduling, reminders, cash compensation and refreshments. The primary outcome was recruitment and retention feasibility, defined as the ability to recruit 28 eligible participants in 28 days, with <50% attrition at the outcome simulation. Acceptability of study procedures and motivations for participation were assessed in a semi-structured interview. RESULTS: We enrolled 30 participants over 24 days, and retained 21 participants (70%, 95%CI 56.7-100). The most common motivation for participation was a desire to serve the community or loved ones in distress. Participants reported that study procedures were acceptable and that the outcome simulation provided a supportive and affirming environment. CONCLUSION: The planned trial is ready for implementation. Recruitment and retention is feasible and study processes are acceptable for people who are likely to witness overdose. (Registration: NCT03821649).

Ticagrelor Monotherapy Versus Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy After PCI: An Individual Patient-Level Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare ticagrelor monotherapy with dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents. BACKGROUND: The role of abbreviated DAPT followed by an oral P2Y12 inhibitor after PCI remains uncertain. METHODS: Two randomized trials, including 14,628 patients undergoing PCI, comparing ticagrelor monotherapy with standard DAPT on centrally adjudicated endpoints were identified, and individual patient data were analyzed using 1-step fixed-effect models. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019143120). The primary outcomes were the composite of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding tested for superiority and, if met, the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year, tested for noninferiority against a margin of 1.25 on a hazard ratio (HR) scale. RESULTS: Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding occurred in fewer patients with ticagrelor than DAPT (0.9% vs. 1.7%, respectively; HR: 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41 to 0.75; p < 0.001). The composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 231 patients (3.2%) with ticagrelor and in 254 patients (3.5%) with DAPT (HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.76 to 1.10; p < 0.001 for noninferiority). Ticagrelor was associated with lower risk for all-cause (HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.52 to 0.96; p = 0.027) and cardiovascular (HR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.99; p = 0.044) mortality. Rates of myocardial infarction (2.01% vs. 2.05%; p = 0.88), stent thrombosis (0.29% vs. 0.38%; p = 0.32), and stroke (0.47% vs. 0.36%; p = 0.30) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with a lower risk for major bleeding compared with standard DAPT, without a concomitant increase in ischemic events.

Comparison of Investigator-Reported and Clinical Event Committee-Adjudicated Outcome Events in GLASSY.

BACKGROUND: Event adjudication by a clinical event committee (CEC) provides a standardized, independent outcome assessment. However, the added value of CEC to investigators reporting remains debated. GLASSY (GLOBAL LEADERS Adjudication Sub-Study) implemented, in a subset of the open-label, investigator-reported (IR) GLOBAL LEADERS trial, an independent adjudication process of reported and unreported potential outcome events (triggers). We describe metrics of GLASSY feasibility and efficiency, diagnostic accuracy of IR events, and their concordance with corresponding CEC-adjudicated events. METHODS: We report the proportion of myocardial infarction, bleeding, stroke, and stent thrombosis triggers with sufficient evidence for assessment (feasibility) that were adjudicated as outcome events (efficiency), stratified by source (IR or non-IR). Using CEC-adjudicated events as criterion standard, we describe sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and global diagnostic accuracy of IR events. Using Gwet AC coefficient, we examine the concordance between IR- and corresponding CEC-adjudicated triggers. There was sufficient evidence for assessment for 2592 (98.3%) of 2636 triggers. RESULTS: Overall, the adjudicated end point-to-trigger ratio was high and similar between IR- (88%) and non-IR-reported (87%) triggers. The global diagnostic accuracy and concordance between IR-reported and CEC-adjudicated outcome events was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.65-0.74) and 0.54 (95% CI, 0.45-0.62), respectively, for myocardial infarction; 0.77 (95% CI, 0.75-0.79) and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.68-0.74) for bleeding; 0.70 (95% CI, 0.62-0.79) and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.43-0.74) for stroke; 0.59 (95% CI, 0.52-0.66) and 0.39 (95% CI, 0.25-0.53) for stent thrombosis. For IR bleedings, the concordance with the CEC on type of events was generally weak. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing CEC adjudication in a pragmatic open-label trial with IR events is feasible and efficient. Our findings of modest global diagnostic accuracy for IR events and generally weak concordance between investigators and CEC support the role for CEC adjudication in such settings. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03231059.

The effects of intravenous iron supplementation on fatigue and general health in non-anemic blood donors with iron deficiency: a randomized placebo-controlled superiority trial.

We investigated whether intravenous iron supplementation improves fatigue and general health in non-anemic repeat adult blood donors with iron deficiency (ferritin ≤ 50 µg/L). Of 1,487 potentially eligible participants, 203 were randomly assigned to a single intravenous dose of 800 mg iron-carboxymaltose and 202 to placebo; 393 participants completed the trial. At 6 to 8 weeks after intervention, self-rated mean fatigue scores (numeric rating scale from 1-10, primary outcome) were 3.9 ± 1.8 in the iron supplementation group and 4.0 ± 2.2 in the placebo group, showing no group difference (p = 0.819). Pre-specified subgroup analyses of gender, ferritin < 25 µg/L and fatigue ≥ 4 points, as well as exploratory analyses of lower ferritin cut-offs did not reveal any between-group differences. In terms of secondary outcomes, the mean differences were 114.2 µg/L for ferritin (95% CI 103.1-125.3) and 5.7 g/L for hemoglobin (95% CI 4.3-7.2) with significantly higher values in the iron supplementation group. No group differences were observed for different measures of general well-being and other clinical and safety outcomes. Intravenous iron supplementation compared with placebo resulted in increase of ferritin and hemoglobin levels in repeat blood donors with low iron stores, yet had no effect on fatigue and general well-being.

Whole milk compared with reduced-fat milk and childhood overweight: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The majority of children in North America consume cow-milk daily. Children aged >2 y are recommended to consume reduced-fat (0.1-2%) cow-milk to lower the risk of obesity. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relation between cow-milk fat consumption and adiposity in children aged 1-18 y. METHODS: Embase (Excerpta Medica Database), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to August 2019 were used. The search included observational and interventional studies of healthy children aged 1-18 y that described the association between cow-milk fat consumption and adiposity. Two reviewers extracted data, using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess risk of bias. Meta-analysis was conducted using random effects to evaluate the relation between cow-milk fat and risk of overweight or obesity. Adiposity was assessed using BMI z-score (zBMI). RESULTS: Of 5862 reports identified by the search, 28 met the inclusion criteria: 20 were cross-sectional and 8 were prospective cohort. No clinical trials were identified. In 18 studies, higher cow-milk fat consumption was associated with lower child adiposity, and 10 studies did not identify an association. Meta-analysis included 14 of the 28 studies (n = 20,897) that measured the proportion of children who consumed whole milk compared with reduced-fat milk and direct measures of overweight or obesity. Among children who consumed whole (3.25% fat) compared with reduced-fat (0.1-2%) milk, the OR of overweight or obesity was 0.61 (95% CI: 0.52, 0.72; P < 0.0001), but heterogeneity between studies was high (I2 = 73.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Observational research suggests that higher cow-milk fat intake is associated with lower childhood adiposity. International guidelines that recommend reduced-fat milk for children might not lower the risk of childhood obesity. Randomized trials are needed to determine which cow-milk fat minimizes risk of excess adiposity. This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42018085075).

Glucose-lowering drugs or strategies, atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, and heart failure in people with or at risk of type 2 diabetes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised cardiovascular outcome trials.

BACKGROUND: In our 2015 systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials for glucose-lowering drugs or strategies in people with or at risk of type 2 diabetes, we reported a modest reduction in atherosclerotic cardiovascular events and an increased risk of heart failure, but with heterogeneous effects by drug or intervention type. In view of the completion of many large cardiovascular outcome trials since our previous analysis, including trials of novel drugs that have shown beneficial effects on cardiovascular outcomes, we aimed to update our analysis to incorporate these findings. METHODS: We did an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of large cardiovascular outcome trials of glucose-lowering drugs or strategies in people with or at risk of type 2 diabetes. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for reports of trials published from Nov 15, 2013 to Nov 20, 2019. We included randomised controlled trials with a minimum of 1000 adults (aged ≥19 years) with or at risk of type 2 diabetes, with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) as an outcome, and with follow-up of at least 12 months. We excluded trials with patients enrolled with an acute cardiovascular event. The main outcomes of interest were MACE (generally defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and heart failure. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs with inverse-variance random-effects models, did meta-regression to analyse treatment effects per difference in bodyweight achieved, and explored results stratified by baseline subgroups. FINDINGS: Our updated search yielded 30 eligible trials (n=225 305). The mean age of participants was 63·0 years (SD 8·4) and mean duration of diabetes was 9·4 years (6·6). After a mean follow-up of 3·8 years (1·8), 23 016 (10·2%) participants had MACE and 8169 (3·6%) had a heart failure event. Glucose-lowering drugs or strategies lowered the risk of MACE compared with standard care or placebo (RR 0·92, 95% CI 0·89-0·95, p<0·0001), with no overall effect on the risk of heart failure (0·98, 0·90-1·08, p=0·71). However, across drug classes or strategies, the magnitude and directionality of RR for heart failure varied (pinteraction<0·0001), with meta-regression showing that a decrease in bodyweight of 1 kg was associated with a 5·9% (3·9-8·0) relative decrease in the risk of heart failure (p<0·0001). Among trials that assessed drug classes or strategies associated with weight loss (intensive lifestyle changes, GLP-1 receptor agonists, or SGLT2 inhibitors), the risk reduction for MACE was consistent among participants with (0·87, 0·83-0·92) and without (0·92, 0·83-1·02) established cardiovascular disease at baseline (pinteraction=0·33). For heart failure, the RR for drug classes or strategies associated with weight loss was consistent among participants with (0·80, 0·73-0·89) and without (0·84, 0·74-0·95) cardiovascular disease at baseline (pinteraction=0·63). INTERPRETATION: Glucose-lowering drugs or strategies overall reduced the risk of fatal and non-fatal atherosclerotic events. The effect on heart failure was neutral overall but varied substantially by intervention type, with interventions associated with weight loss showing a beneficial effect. The cardiovascular and heart failure benefits of interventions associated with weight loss might extend to patients without established cardiovascular disease. FUNDING: None.