Global variations in the prevalence, treatment, and impact of atrial fibrillation in a multi-national cohort of 153 152 middle-aged individuals.

AIMS: To compare the prevalence of electrocardiogram (ECG)-documented atrial fibrillation (or flutter) (AF) across eight regions of the world, and to examine antithrombotic use and clinical outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Baseline ECGs were collected in 153 152 middle-aged participants (ages 35-70 years) to document AF in two community-based studies, spanning 20 countries. Medication use and clinical outcome data (mean follow-up of 7.4 years) were available in one cohort. Cross-sectional analyses were performed to document the prevalence of AF and medication use, and associations between AF and clinical events were examined prospectively. Mean age of participants was 52.1 years, and 57.7% were female. Age and sex-standardized prevalence of AF varied 12-fold between regions; with the highest in North America, Europe, China, and Southeast Asia (270-360 cases per 100 000 persons); and lowest in the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia (30-60 cases per 100 000 persons) (P < 0.001). Compared with low-income countries (LICs), AF prevalence was 7-fold higher in middle-income countries (MICs) and 11-fold higher in high-income countries (HICs) (P < 0.001). Differences in AF prevalence remained significant after adjusting for traditional AF risk factors. In LICs/MICs, 24% of participants with AF and a CHADS2 score ≥1 received antithrombotic therapy, compared with 85% in HICs. AF was associated with an increased risk of stroke [hazard ratio (HR) 2.29; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49-3.52] and death (HR 2.97; 95% CI 2.25-3.93); with similar rates in different countries grouped by income level. CONCLUSIONS: Large variations in AF prevalence occur in different regions and countries grouped by income level, but this is only partially explained by traditional AF risk factors. Antithrombotic therapy is infrequently used in poorer countries despite the high risk of stroke associated with AF.

Evaluating comparative effectiveness of psychosocial interventions adjunctive to opioid agonist therapy for opioid use disorder: A systematic review with network meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend that individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) receive pharmacological and psychosocial interventions; however, the most appropriate psychosocial intervention is not known. In collaboration with people with lived experience, clinicians, and policy makers, we sought to assess the relative benefits of psychosocial interventions as an adjunct to opioid agonist therapy (OAT) among persons with OUD. METHODS: A review protocol was registered a priori (CRD42018090761), and a comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials (RCT) was conducted from database inception to June 2020 in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Established methods for study selection and data extraction were used. Primary outcomes were treatment retention and opioid use (measured by urinalysis for opioid use and opioid abstinence outcomes). Odds ratios were estimated using network meta-analyses (NMA) as appropriate based on available evidence, and in remaining cases alternative approaches to synthesis were used. RESULTS: Seventy-two RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias evaluations commonly identified study limitations and poor reporting with regard to methods used for allocation concealment and selective outcome reporting. Due to inconsistency in reporting of outcome measures, only 48 RCTs (20 unique interventions, 5,404 participants) were included for NMA of treatment retention, where statistically significant differences were found when psychosocial interventions were used as an adjunct to OAT as compared to OAT-only. The addition of rewards-based interventions such as contingency management (alone or with community reinforcement approach) to OAT was superior to OAT-only. Few statistically significant differences between psychosocial interventions were identified among any other pairwise comparisons. Heterogeneity in reporting formats precluded an NMA for opioid use. A structured synthesis was undertaken for the remaining outcomes which included opioid use (n = 18 studies) and opioid abstinence (n = 35 studies), where the majority of studies found no significant difference between OAT plus psychosocial interventions as compared to OAT-only. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review offers a comprehensive synthesis of the available evidence and the limitations of current trials of psychosocial interventions applied as an adjunct to OAT for OUD. Clinicians and health services may wish to consider integrating contingency management in addition to OAT for OUD in their settings to improve treatment retention. Aside from treatment retention, few differences were consistently found between psychosocial interventions adjunctive to OAT and OAT-only. There is a need for high-quality RCTs to establish more definitive conclusions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration CRD42018090761.

Herceptin® (trastuzumab) in HER2-positive early breast cancer: a systematic review and cumulative network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Originator trastuzumab (Herceptin®; H) is an antibody-targeted therapy to treat patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) early breast cancer (EBC). We investigated the overall survival (OS) advantage conferred by the addition of H to chemotherapy for HER2+ EBC patients and how the OS advantage changed over time. METHODS: A systematic literature review (SLR) identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRSs) published from January 1, 1990 to January 19, 2017, comparing systemic therapies used in the neoadjuvant/adjuvant settings to treat HER2+ EBC patients. Bayesian cumulative network meta-analyses (cNMAs) of OS were conducted to assess the published literature over time. Heterogeneity was assessed through sensitivity and subgroup analyses. RESULTS: The SLR identified 31 unique studies (28 RCTs, 3 NRSs) included in the OS analyses from 2008 to 2016. In the reference case cNMA (RCTs alone), initial evidence demonstrated an OS advantage for H/chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone in HER2+ EBC patients. As additional OS data were published, the precision around this survival benefit strengthened over time. Both H/anthracycline-containing chemotherapy and H/non-anthracycline-containing chemotherapy regimens provided similar OS advantages for HER2+ EBC patients. CONCLUSION: This analysis represents the most comprehensive SLR/cNMA to date of published OS data in HER2+ EBC studies. These findings demonstrate why H/chemotherapy is now the established standard of care in HER2+ EBC. In the case of H, the benefits of early patient access far outweighed the risk of waiting for more precise information. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017055763.