Lenient rate control versus strict rate control for atrial fibrillation: a statistical analysis plan for the Danish Atrial Fibrillation (DanAF) randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: A key decision in the treatment of atrial fibrillation is choosing between a rhythm control strategy or a rate control strategy as the main strategy. When choosing rate control, the optimal heart rate target is uncertain. The Danish Atrial Fibrillation trial is a randomized, multicenter, two-group, superiority trial comparing strict rate control versus lenient rate control in patients with either persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation at inclusion. To prevent bias arising from selective reporting and data-driven analyses, we developed a predefined description of the statistical analysis. METHODS: The primary outcome of this trial is the physical component score of the SF-36 questionnaire. A total of 350 participants will be enrolled based on a minimal important difference of 3 points on the physical component score of the SF-36 questionnaire, a standard deviation of 10 points, a statistical power of 80% (beta of 20%), and an acceptable risk of type I error of 5%. All secondary, exploratory, and echocardiographic outcomes will be hypothesis-generating. The analyses of all outcomes will be based on the intention-to-treat principle. We will analyze continuous outcomes using linear regression adjusting for "site," type of atrial fibrillation at inclusion (persistent/ permanent), left ventricular ejection fraction (≥ 40% or < 40%), and the baseline value of the outcome (all as fixed effects). We define our threshold for statistical significance as a p-value of 0.05 and assessments of clinical significance will be based on the anticipated intervention effects defined in the sample size and power estimations. Thresholds for both statistical and clinical significance will be assessed according to the 5-step procedure proposed by Jakobsen and colleagues. DISCUSSION: This statistical analysis plan will be published prior to enrolment completion and before any data are available and is sought to increase the validity of the DANish Atrial Fibrillation trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04542785. Registered on Sept 09, 2020.

Physical activity paradox: could inflammation be a key factor?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test the extent to which physical activity performed during work and leisure is associated with systemic inflammation. METHODS: Data regarding job history and high-sensitivity C reactive protein (hs-CRP) levels, as well as potential confounders, came from the Copenhagen Aging and Midlife Biobank. The participants' self-reported job history was combined with a job exposure matrix to give a more valid assessment of cumulated occupational physical activity compared with conventional self-reported activity. Occupational physical activity was measured as cumulative ton-years (lifting 1000 kg each day for a year). Current leisure time physical activity was self-reported into four different categories. We analysed the association between occupational physical activity, current leisure time physical activity and hs-CRP level in a multivariable linear regression model with adjustment for age, sex, smoking history, number of chronic diseases, body mass index and alcohol. RESULTS: In unadjusted analysis, higher occupational physical activity was associated with increased hs-CRP levels, while higher leisure time physical activity was associated with lower hs-CRP levels. In adjusted analysis, lower leisure time physical activity resulted in 12% higher hs-CRP levels while higher occupational physical activities showed a 6% increase in hs-CRP. When we analysed occupational and leisure time physical activity as continuous variables, only leisure time physical activity affected hs-CRP. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that the relationship between physical activity and hs-CRP depends on the setting of physical activity, with lower hs-CRP related to leisure time physical activity and higher hs-CRP related to occupational physical activity. The results suggest that systemic inflammation may explain the physical activity paradox.

Vaccines to prevent COVID-19: A living systematic review with Trial Sequential Analysis and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is rapidly spreading causing extensive burdens across the world. Effective vaccines to prevent COVID-19 are urgently needed. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Our objective was to assess the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines through analyses of all currently available randomized clinical trials. We searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and other sources from inception to June 17, 2021 for randomized clinical trials assessing vaccines for COVID-19. At least two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We conducted meta-analyses, network meta-analyses, and Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA). Our primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, vaccine efficacy, and serious adverse events. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. We identified 46 trials; 35 trials randomizing 219 864 participants could be included in our analyses. Our meta-analyses showed that mRNA vaccines (efficacy, 95% [95% confidence interval (CI), 92% to 97%]; 71 514 participants; 3 trials; moderate certainty); inactivated vaccines (efficacy, 61% [95% CI, 52% to 68%]; 48 029 participants; 3 trials; moderate certainty); protein subunit vaccines (efficacy, 77% [95% CI, -5% to 95%]; 17 737 participants; 2 trials; low certainty); and viral vector vaccines (efficacy 68% [95% CI, 61% to 74%]; 71 401 participants; 5 trials; low certainty) prevented COVID-19. Viral vector vaccines decreased mortality (risk ratio, 0.25 [95% CI 0.09 to 0.67]; 67 563 participants; 3 trials, low certainty), but comparable data on inactivated, mRNA, and protein subunit vaccines were imprecise. None of the vaccines showed evidence of a difference on serious adverse events, but observational evidence suggested rare serious adverse events. All the vaccines increased the risk of non-serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that all the included vaccines are effective in preventing COVID-19. The mRNA vaccines seem most effective in preventing COVID-19, but viral vector vaccines seem most effective in reducing mortality. Further trials and longer follow-up are necessary to provide better insight into the safety profile of these vaccines.

Lenient rate control versus strict rate control for atrial fibrillation: a protocol for the Danish Atrial Fibrillation (DanAF) randomised clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation is the most common heart arrhythmia with a prevalence of approximately 2% in the western world. Atrial fibrillation is associated with an increased risk of death and morbidity. In many patients, a rate control strategy is recommended. The optimal heart rate target is disputed despite the results of the the RAte Control Efficacy in permanent atrial fibrillation: a comparison between lenient vs strict rate control II (RACE II) trial.Our primary objective will be to investigate the effect of lenient rate control strategy (<110 beats per minute (bpm) at rest) compared with strict rate control strategy (<80 bpm at rest) on quality of life in patients with persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We plan a two-group, superiority randomised clinical trial. 350 outpatients with persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation will be recruited from four hospitals, across three regions in Denmark. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to a lenient medical rate control strategy (<110 bpm at rest) or a strict medical rate control strategy (<80 bpm at rest). The recruitment phase is planned to be 2 years with 3 years of follow-up. Recruitment is expected to start in January 2021. The primary outcome will be quality of life using the Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaire (physical component score). Secondary outcomes will be days alive outside hospital, symptom control using the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life, quality of life using the SF-36 questionnaire (mental component score) and serious adverse events. The primary assessment time point for all outcomes will be 1 year after randomisation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained through the ethics committee in Region Zealand. The design and findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals as well as be made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04542785.

Beneficial and harmful effects of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

Current guidelines recommend angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) (sacubitril/valsartan) as a replacement for angiotensin-converting-enzymeinhibitor (ACE-I) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who remain symptomatic despite optimal medical therapy. The effects of ARNIs have not previously been assessed in a systematic review. We searched for relevant trials until October 2019 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, BIOSIS, CNKI, VIP, WanFang and CBM. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. We systematically assessed the risks of random errors and systematic errors. PROSPERO registration: CRD42019129336. 48 trials randomising 19 086 participants were included. The ARNI assessed in all trials was sacubitril/valsartan. ACE-I or ARB were used as control interventions. Trials randomising HFrEF participants (27 trials) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) participants (four trials) were analysed separately. In HFrEF participants, meta-analyses and Trial Sequential Analyses showed evidence of a beneficial effect of sacubitril/valsartan when assessing all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR), 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.94) and serious adverse events (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86 to 0.93); and the results did not differ between the guideline recommended target population and HFrEF participants in general. We found no evidence of an effect of sacubitril/valsartan in HFpEF participants. Sacubitril/valsartan compared with either ACE-I or ARB seems to have a beneficial effect in patients with HFrEF. Our results indicate that sacubitril/valsartan might be beneficial in a wider population of patients with heart failure than the guideline recommended target population. Sacubitril/valsartan does not seem to show evidence of a difference compared with valsartan in patients with HFpEF.