Visit-to-visit variability in multiple biological measurements and cognitive performance and risk of cardiovascular disease: A cohort study.

Background: Visit-to-visit variability in single biological measurements has been associated with cognitive decline and an elevated risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVD). However, the effect of visit-to-visit variability in multiple biological measures is underexplored. We investigated the effect of visit-to-visit variability in blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), weight, fasting plasma glucose, cholesterol, and triglycerides on cognitive performance and CVD. Methods: Data on BP, HR, weight, glucose, cholesterol, and triglycerides from study visits in the Outcome Reduction with Initial Glargine Intervention (ORIGIN) trial were used to estimate the association between visit-to-visit variability, cognitive performance (Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) score) and CVD (non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular death). Visit-to-visit variation for each measurement was estimated by calculating each individuals visit-to-visit standard deviation for that measurement. Participants whose standard deviation was in the highest quarter were classified as having high variation. Participants were grouped into those having 0, 1, 2, 3, or ≥ 4 high variation measurements. Regression and survival models were used to estimate the association between biological measures with MMSE and CVD with adjustment for confounders and mean measurement value. Results: After adjustment for covariates, higher visit-to-visit variability in BP, HR, weight, and FPG were associated with poorer MMSE and a higher risk of CVD. Effect sizes did not vary greatly by measurement. The effects of high visit-to-visit variability were additive; compared to participants who had no measurements with high visit-to-visit variability, those who had high visit-to-visit variability in ≥4 measurements had poorer MMSE scores (-0.63 (95 % CI -0.96 to -0·31). Participants with ≥4 measurements with high visit-to-visit variability compared to participants with none had higher risk of CVD (hazard ratio 2.46 (95 % CI 1.63 to 3.70). Conclusion: Visit-to-visit variability in several measurements were associated with cumulatively poorer cognitive performance and a greater risk of CVD.

Arm and ankle blood pressure indices, and peripheral artery disease, and mortality: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Few studies have compared arm and ankle blood pressures (BPs) with regard to peripheral artery disease (PAD) and mortality. These relationships were assessed using data from three large prospective clinical trials. METHODS: Baseline BP indices included arm systolic BP (SBP), diastolic BP (DBP), pulse pressure (arm SBP minus DBP), ankle SBP, ankle-brachial index (ABI, ankle SBP divided by arm SBP), and ankle-pulse pressure difference (APPD, ankle SBP minus arm pulse pressure). These measurements were categorized into four groups using quartiles. The outcomes were PAD (the first occurrence of either peripheral revascularization or lower-limb amputation for vascular disease), the composite of PAD or death, and all-cause death. RESULTS: Among 40 747 participants without baseline PAD (age 65.6 years, men 68.3%, diabetes 50.2%) from 53 countries, 1071 (2.6%) developed PAD, and 4955 (12.2%) died during 5 years of follow-up. Incident PAD progressively rose with higher arm BP indices and fell with ankle BP indices. The strongest relationships were noted for ankle BP indices. Compared with people whose ankle BP indices were in the highest fourth, adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for each lower fourth were 1.64 (1.31-2.04), 2.59 (2.10-3.20), and 4.23 (3.44-5.21) for ankle SBP; 1.19 (0.95-1.50), 1.66 (1.34-2.05), and 3.34 (2.75-4.06) for ABI; and 1.41 (1.11-1.78), 2.04 (1.64-2.54), and 3.63 (2.96-4.45) for APPD. Similar patterns were observed for mortality. Ankle BP indices provided the highest c-statistics and classification indices in predicting future PAD beyond established risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Ankle BP indices including the ankle SBP and the APPD best predicted PAD and mortality.

Bleeding Risk Prediction in Patients Treated with Antithrombotic Drugs According to the Anatomic Site of Bleeding, Indication for Treatment, and Time Since Treatment Initiation.

Background Reasons for the relatively poor performance of bleeding prediction models are not well understood but may relate to differences in predictors for various anatomical sites of bleeding. Methods We pooled individual participant data from four randomized controlled trials of antithrombotic therapy in patients with coronary and peripheral artery diseases, embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS), or atrial fibrillation. We examined discrimination and calibration of models for any major bleeding, major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), according to the time since initiation of antithrombotic therapy, and indication for antithrombotic therapy. Results Of 57,813 patients included, 1,948 (3.37%) experienced major bleeding, including 717 (1.24%) major GI bleeding and 274 (0.47%) ICH. The model derived to predict major bleeding at 1 year from any site (c-index, 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.71) performed similarly when applied to predict major GI bleeding (0.71, 0.69-0.74), but less well to predict ICH (0.64, 0.61-0.69). Models derived to predict GI bleeding (0.75, 0.74-0.78) and ICH (0.72, 0.70-0.79) performed better than the general major bleeding model. Discrimination declined over time since the initiation of antithrombotic treatment, stabilizing at approximately 2 years for any major bleeding and major GI bleeding and 1 year for ICH. Discrimination was best for the model predicting ICH in the ESUS population (0.82, 0.78-0.92) and worst for the model predicting any major bleeding in the coronary and peripheral artery disease population (0.66, 0.65-0.69). Conclusion Performance of risk prediction models for major bleeding is affected by site of bleeding, time since initiation of antithrombotic therapy, and indication for antithrombotic therapy.

Effect of basal insulin and omega 3 fatty acids on cognitive impairment in dysglycaemia: An exploratory analysis of the ORIGIN trial.

AIM: The outcomes reduction with an initial glargine intervention (ORIGIN) trial reported that, allocation to insulin glargine-mediated normoglycaemia versus standard care, and to omega 3 fatty acids versus placebo had a neutral effect on cognitive test scores when analysed as continuous variables. Analyses of these scores as standardized categorical variables using a previously validated strategy may yield different results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The ORIGIN trial recruited participants with dysglycaemia and additional cardiovascular risk factors from 573 sites in 40 countries. They completed a mini mental state examination and a subset completed the digit symbol substitution test at baseline and up to three subsequent visits. The effect of the interventions on country-standardized substantive cognitive impairment, defined as the first occurrence of a baseline-adjusted follow-up mini mental state examination or digit symbol substitution test score ≥1.5 standard deviations below the baseline mean score in each participant's country was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 6.2 years, 2627 of 11 682 people (22.5%) developed country-standardized substantive cognitive impairment. The hazard of this outcome was reduced by 9% (hazard ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.85, 0.99; p = .023) in participants assigned to insulin glargine (21.6%) versus standard care (23.3%). Conversely, the hazard of this outcome was not affected by assignment to omega 3 fatty acid versus placebo (hazard ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.86, 1.01; p = .074). CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc exploratory analysis, insulin glargine-mediated normoglycaemia but not omega 3 fatty acids reduced the hazard of substantive cognitive impairment in people with dysglycaemia and additional cardiovascular risk factors.

Identifying the highest risk vascular patients: Insights from the XATOA registry.

BACKGROUND: Patients with coronary and peripheral artery disease (PAD) have a residual risk of major adverse cardiovascular and limb events despite standards of care. Among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and/or PAD selected for low dose rivaroxaban (2.5 mg BID) and aspirin, we sought to determine the highest risk vascular patients. METHODS: Xarelto pluc Acetylsalicylic acid: Treatment patterns and Outcomes in patients with Atherosclerosis (XATOA) is a single-arm registry of CAD and/or PAD patients. All participants were initiated on low dose rivaroxaban (2.5 mg BID) and aspirin. We report the incidence risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or major adverse limb events (MALE) and major bleeding. A classification and regression tree analysis determined independent subgroups. RESULTS: Between November 2018 and May 2020, 5,808 participants were enrolled in XATOA; 5,532 were included in the full analysis. The median follow-up (interquartile range) was 462 (371-577) days. The incidence risk per 100 patient-years of MACE or MALE was highest among participants with polyvascular disease (2 or more vascular beds affected, n = 2,889). The incidence risk was 9.16 versus 2.48 per 100 patient-years in polyvascular and nonpolyvascular patients respectively. Other subgroups of high-risk patients included participants 75 years or older, with a history of diabetes, heart failure, or chronic renal insufficiency (CRI). Rates of major bleeding were low overall. A classification and regression tree analysis showed that polyvascular disease was the most dominant factor separating higher from lower risk participants, and this was heightened with CRI or diabetes. CONCLUSION: Patients with polyvascular disease represent a substantial subset of patients in clinical practice and should be prioritized to receive maximal medical therapy including low dose rivaroxaban (2.5 mg BID) and aspirin.

Global stroke statistics 2023: Availability of reperfusion services around the world.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in the availability of reperfusion services for acute ischemic stroke are considerable globally and require urgent attention. Contemporary data on the availability of reperfusion services in different countries are used to provide the necessary evidence to prioritize where access to acute stroke treatment is needed. AIMS: To provide a snapshot of published literature on the provision of reperfusion services globally, including when facilitated by telemedicine or mobile stroke unit services. METHODS: We searched PubMed to identify original articles, published up to January 2023 for the most recent, representative, and relevant patient-level data for each country. Keywords included thrombolysis, endovascular thrombectomy and telemedicine. We also screened reference lists of review articles, citation history of articles, and the gray literature. The information is provided as a narrative summary. RESULTS: Of 11,222 potentially eligible articles retrieved, 148 were included for review following de-duplications and full-text review. Data were also obtained from national stroke clinical registry reports, Registry of Stroke Care Quality (RES-Q) and PRE-hospital Stroke Treatment Organization (PRESTO) repositories, and other national sources. Overall, we found evidence of the provision of intravenous thrombolysis services in 70 countries (63% high-income countries (HICs)) and endovascular thrombectomy services in 33 countries (68% HICs), corresponding to far less than half of the countries in the world. Recent data (from 2019 or later) were lacking for 35 of 67 countries with known year of data (52%). We found published data on 74 different stroke telemedicine programs (93% in HICs) and 14 active mobile stroke unit pre-hospital ambulance services (80% in HICs) around the world. CONCLUSION: Despite remarkable advancements in reperfusion therapies for stroke, it is evident from available patient-level data that their availability remains unevenly distributed globally. Contemporary published data on availability of reperfusion services remain scarce, even in HICs, thereby making it difficult to reliably ascertain current gaps in the provision of this vital acute stroke treatment around the world.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin Compared with Aspirin Alone in the COMPASS Trial: A US Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily with aspirin 100 mg daily was shown to be better than aspirin 100 mg daily for preventing cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke or myocardial infarction in patients with either stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). The cost-effectiveness of this regimen in this population is essential for decision-makers to know. METHODS: US direct healthcare system costs (in USD) were applied to hospitalized events, procedures and study drugs utilized by all patients. We determined the mean cost per participant for the full duration of the trial (mean follow-up of 23 months) plus quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over a lifetime using a two-state Markov model with 1-year cycle length. Sensitivity analyses were performed on the price of rivaroxaban and the annual discontinuation rate. RESULTS: The costs of events and procedures were reduced for Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) patients who received rivaroxaban 2.5 mg orally (BID) plus acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) compared with ASA alone. Total costs were higher for the combination group ($7426 versus $4173) after considering acquisition costs of the study drug. Over a lifetime, patients receiving rivaroxaban plus ASA incurred $27,255 more and gained 1.17 QALYs compared with those receiving ASA alone resulting in an ICER of $23,295/QALY. ICERs for PAD only and polyvascular disease subgroups were lower. CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID plus ASA compared with ASA alone was cost-effective (high value) in the USA. COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01776424.

Cognitive performance following stroke, transient ischaemic attack, myocardial infarction, and hospitalisation: an individual participant data meta-analysis of six randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Survivors of stroke are often concerned about cognitive problems, and information on the risk of cognitive problems often comes from small studies. We aimed to estimate years of cognitive ageing associated with stroke compared with transient ischaemic attack, myocardial infarction, and other hospitalisations in a large population. METHODS: Using data from six randomised controlled trials (ORIGIN, ONTARGET, TRANSCEND, COMPASS, HOPE-3, and NAVIGATE ESUS), we completed an individual participant data meta-analysis using data requested from the Public Health Research Institute to estimate the association of stroke (by type and severity), transient ischaemic attack, myocardial infarction, and other hospitalisations with cognitive performance measured at the end of each trial. We included participants in any of these randomised controlled trials with a cognitive assessment at baseline and at least one other timepoint. Cognitive performance was measured with the Mini-Mental State Examination or the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, transformed into Z scores. We estimated Z score differences in end of trial cognitive performance between people with and without events and calculated corresponding years of cognitive ageing in these trials, and additionally calculated using a population representative cohort-the Cognitive Function and Ageing Study. FINDINGS: In 64 106 participants from 55 countries, compared with no event, stroke was associated with 18 years of cognitive ageing (1487 strokes included in the model, 95% CI 10 to 28; p<0·0001) and transient ischaemic attack with 3 years (660 transient ischaemic attacks included in the model, 0 to 6; p=0·021). Myocardial infarction (p=0·60) and other hospitalisations (p=0·26) were not associated with cognitive ageing. The mean difference in SD compared with people without an event was -0·84 (95% CI -0·91 to -0·76; p<0·0001) for disabling stroke, and -0·12 (-0·19 to -0·05; p=0·0012) for non-disabling stroke. Haemorrhagic stroke was associated with worse cognition (-0·75, -0·95 to -0·55; p<0·0001) than ischaemic stroke (-0·42, -0·48 to -0·36; p <0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Stroke has a substantial effect on cognition. The effects of transient ischaemic attack were small, whereas myocardial infarction and hospitalisation had a neutral effect. Prevention of stroke could lead to a reduction in cognitive ageing in those at greatest risk. FUNDING: Population Health Research Institute and Chief Scientist Office of Scotland.

Antiplatelet therapy and incident cognitive impairment or dementia-a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: The benefit of antiplatelet therapy in preventing cognitive impairment or dementia is uncertain. We investigated the association between antiplatelet therapy and incident cognitive impairment or dementia in randomised clinical trials. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL for randomised clinical trials published from database inception through 1 February 2023. Trials that evaluated the association of antiplatelet therapy with incident cognitive impairment or dementia were included. For single-agent antiplatelet, the control group was placebo. For dual agent antiplatelet therapy, the control group was single-agent monotherapy. A random-effects meta-analysis model was used to report pooled treatment effects and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary outcome was incident cognitive impairment or dementia. Secondary outcomes included change in cognitive test scores. RESULTS: A total of 11 randomised clinical trials were included (109,860 participants). All reported the incidence of cognitive impairment or dementia on follow-up. The mean (SD) age of trial participants was 66.2 (7.9) years. Antiplatelet therapy was not significantly associated with a reduced risk of cognitive impairment or dementia (11 trials; 109,860 participants) (3.49% versus 4.18% of patients over a mean trial follow-up of 5.8 years; odds ratio [OR], 0.94 [95% CI, 0.88-1.00]; absolute risk reduction, 0.2% [95% CI, -0.4% to 0.009%]; I2 = 0.0%). Antiplatelet therapy was not significantly associated with mean change in cognitive test scores. CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis, antiplatelet therapy was not significantly associated with a lower risk of incident cognitive impairment or dementia, but the CIs around this outcome do not exclude a modest preventative effect.

World-wide variations in tests of cognition and activities of daily living in participants of six international randomized controlled trials.

Background: Better understanding of worldwide variation in simple tests of cognition and global function in older adults would aid the delivery and interpretation of multi-national studies of the prevention of dementia and functional decline. Method: In six RCTs that measured cognition with the mini-mental state examination (MMSE), Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA), and activities of daily living (ADL) with the Standardised Assessment of Everyday Global Activities (SAGEA), we estimated average scores by global region with multilevel mixed-effects models. We estimated the proportion of participants with cognitive or functional impairment with previously defined thresholds (MMSE≤24 or MoCA≤25, SAGEA≥7), and with a country-standardised z-score threshold of cognitive or functional score of ≤-1. Results: In 91,396 participants (mean age 66.6 years [SD 7.8], 31% females) from seven world regions, all global regions differed significantly in estimated cognitive function (z-score differences 0.11-0.45, p<0.001) after accounting for individual-level factors, centre and study. In different regions, the proportion of trial participants with MMSE≤24 or MoCA≤25 ranged from 23-36%; the proportion below a country-standardised z-score threshold of ≤1 ranged from 10-14%. The differences in prevalence of impaired IADL (SAGEA≥7) ranged from 2-6% and by country-standardised thresholds from 3-6%. Conclusions: Accounting for country-level factors reduced large differences between world regions in estimates of cognitive impairment. Measures of IADL were less variable across world regions, and could be used to better estimate dementia prevalence in large studies.

Strategies for specialty training of healthcare professionals in low-resource settings: a systematic review on evidence from stroke care.

BACKGROUND: The greatest mortality and disability from stroke occurs in low- and middle-income countries. A significant barrier to implementation of best stroke care practices in these settings is limited availability of specialized healthcare training. We conducted a systematic review to determine the most effective methods for the provision of speciality stroke care education for hospital-based healthcare professionals in low-resource settings. METHODS: We followed the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews and searched PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus for original clinical research articles that described or evaluated stroke care education for hospital-based healthcare professionals in low-resource settings. Two reviewers screened titles/abstracts and then full text articles. Three reviewers critically appraised the articles selected for inclusion. RESULTS: A total of 1,182 articles were identified and eight were eligible for inclusion in this review; three were randomized controlled trials, four were non-randomized studies, and one was a descriptive study. Most studies used several approaches to education. A "train-the-trainer" approach to education was found to have the most positive clinical outcomes (lower overall complications, lengths of stay in hospital, and clinical vascular events). When used for quality improvement, the "train-the-trainer" approach increased patient reception of eligible performance measures. When technology was used to provide stroke education there was an increased frequency in diagnosis of stroke and use of antithrombotic treatment, reduced door-to-needle times, and increased support for decision making in medication prescription was reported. Task-shifting workshops for non-neurologists improved knowledge of stroke and patient care. Multidimensional education demonstrated an overall care quality improvement and increased prescriptions for evidence-based therapies, although, there were no significant differences in secondary prevention efforts, stroke reoccurrence or mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: The "train the trainer" approach is likely the most effective strategy for specialist stroke education, while technology is also useful if resources are available to support its development and use. If resources are limited, basic knowledge education should be considered at a minimum and multidimensional training may not be as beneficial. Research into communities of practice, led by those in similar settings, may be helpful to develop educational initiatives with relevance to local contexts.

Effectiveness of interventions by non-professional community-level workers or family caregivers to improve outcomes for physical impairments or disabilities in low resource settings: systematic review of task-sharing strategies.

BACKGROUND: In low-resource settings, access to basic rehabilitation could be supplemented by community-level interventions provided by community health workers, health volunteers, or family caregivers. Yet, it is unclear whether basic physical rehabilitation interventions delivered to adults by non-professional alternative resources in the community, under task-shifting or task-sharing approaches, are effective as those delivered by skilled rehabilitation professionals. We aim to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of community-level rehabilitation interventions delivered by non-professional community-level workers or informal caregivers to improve health outcomes for persons with physical impairments or disabilities. METHODS: We performed a systematic review with a PROSPERO registration. Eight databases were searched for (PubMed, CINAHL, Global Health, PDQ Evidence, Scopus, ProQuest, CENTRAL, and Web of Science), supplemented by snowballing and key-informant recommendations, with no time restrictions, applied. Controlled and non-controlled experiments were included if reporting the effects of interventions on mobility, activities of daily living (ADLs), quality of life, or social participation outcomes. Two independent investigators performed the eligibility decisions, data extraction, risk of bias, and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Ten studies (five randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) involving 2149 participants were included. Most common targeted stroke survivors (n = 8); family caregivers were most frequently used to deliver the intervention (n = 4); and the intervention was usually provided in homes (n = 7), with training initiated in the hospital (n = 4). Of the four RCTs delivered by family caregivers, one demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in mobility (effect size: 0.3; confidence interval [CI] 121.81-122.19; [p = 0.04]) and another one in ADLs (effect size: 0.4; CI 25.92-35.08; [p = 0.03]). Of the five non-RCT studies by community health workers or volunteers, one demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in mobility (effect size: 0.3; CI 10.143-16.857; [p < 0.05]), while two demonstrated improved statistically significant improvement in ADLs (effect size: 0.2; CI 180.202-184.789 [p = 0.001]; 0.4; CI - 7.643-18.643; [p = 0.026]). However, the quality of evidence, based on GRADE criteria, was rated as low to very low. CONCLUSIONS: While task-sharing is a possible strategy to meet basic rehabilitation needs in low-resource settings, the current evidence on the effectiveness of delivering rehabilitation interventions by non-professional community-level workers and informal caregivers is inconclusive. We can use the data and experiences from existing studies to better design studies and improve the implementation of interventions. Trial registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022319130.

Comparator Groups in ICU-Based Studies of Physical Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review of 125 Studies.

To characterize comparator groups (CGs) in ICU-based studies of physical rehabilitation (PR), including the type, content, and reporting. DATA SOURCES: We followed a five-stage scoping review methodology, searching five databases from inception to June 30, 2022. Study selection and data extraction were completed independently, in duplicate. STUDY SELECTION: We screened studies by title and abstract, then full-text. We included prospective studies with greater than or equal to two arms enrolling mechanically ventilated adults (≥ 18 yr), with any planned PR intervention initiated in the ICU. DATA EXTRACTION: We conducted a quantitative content analysis of authors' description of CG type and content. We categorized similar CG types (e.g., usual care), classified content into unique activities (e.g., positioning), and summarized these data using counts (proportions). We assessed reporting using Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT; proportion of reported items/total applicable). DATA SYNTHESIS: One hundred twenty-five studies were included, representing 127 CGs. PR was planned in 112 CGs (88.2%; 110 studies), representing four types: usual care (n = 81, 63.8%), alternative treatment than usual care (e.g., different from intervention; n = 18, 14.2%), alternative treatment plus usual care (n = 7, 5.5%), and sham (n = 6, 4.7%). Of 112 CGs with planned PR, 90 CGs (88 studies) reported 60 unique activities, most commonly passive range of motion (n = 47, 52.2%). The remaining 22 CGs (19.6%; 22 studies) reported vague descriptions. PR was not planned in 12 CGs (9.5%; 12 studies), and three CGs (2.4%; three studies) reported no details. Studies reported a median (Q1-Q3) of 46.6% (25.0-73.3%) CERT items. Overall, 20.0% of studies reported no detail to understand planned CG activities. CONCLUSIONS: The most common type of CG was usual care. We identified heterogeneity in planned activities and CERT reporting deficiencies. Our results could help guide the selection, design, and reporting of CGs in future ICU-based PR studies.

Dietary intake and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with chronic vascular disease: insights from the COMPASS trial cohort.

AIMS: Patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) are at risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and major adverse limb events (MALE). There are limited data regarding dietary patterns and the risk of recurrent MACE and MALE in CAD and PAD patients. We aimed to identify dietary patterns associated with MACE and MALE in patients with CAD and/or PAD. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed data collected from patients enrolled into the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial, in which diet was assessed by a short food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) at baseline. Two dietary pattern scores, the modified Alternate Healthy Eating Index (mAHEI) and Mediterranean Diet Score (mMDS), were calculated. We tested the association between mAHEI and mMDS and the incidence of MACE and/or MALE. The mean mAHEI score was 23.0 ± 7.7 (out of 70) overall and was similar comparing CAD and PAD patients. The incidence of MACE or MALE was 6.3% in the lowest diet quality quartile (as assessed by mAHEI) compared with 4.2% in the highest quartile over 30 months. In the fully adjusted model, the hazard ratio of a low diet quality (Quartile 1) compared with the highest (Quartile 4) for MACE or MALE was 1.27 (95% CI: 1.08-1.49; P = 0.004, Q1 vs. Q4). This excess hazard was primarily driven by higher MACE in both the CAD and PAD cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Poor diet quality as assessed by the mAHEI is independently associated with a higher risk of recurrent MACE and MALE in patients with chronic CAD and/or PAD.

There are limited data regarding dietary patterns and the risk of recurrent major adverse cardiovascular and limb complications in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and peripheral artery disease (PAD). We show thatA low-quality diet is associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular and limb-related complicationsThis elevated risk is driven by higher rates of heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular death in patients with a low-quality diet.

The predictive value of interarm systolic blood pressure differences in patients with vascular disease: Sub-analysis of the COMPASS trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Systolic blood pressure interarm difference (IAD) predicts cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in primary prevention populations. We examined the predictive value of IAD and the effects of treatment with the combination of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg once daily versus aspirin 100 mg once daily according to IAD in patients with chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease. METHODS: COMPASS trial patients with IAD <15 mmHg and IAD >15 mmHg were compared with respect to thirty-month incidence risk of: 1) composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular death (MACE), 2) composite of acute limb-ischemia or vascular amputation (MALE), 3) composite of MACE or MALE, and 4) effects of treatment with the combination versus aspirin alone on these outcomes. RESULTS: 24,539 patients had IAD<15 mmHg and 2,776 had IAD ≥15 mmHg. Relative to patients with IAD ≥15 mm Hg, those with IAD<15 mmHg had similar incidence rates for all measured outcomes including the composite of MACE or MALE (HR 1.12 [95% CI: 0.95 to 1.31], p = 0.19), with the exception of stroke (HR 1.38 [95% CI: 1.02 to 1.88], p = 0.04). Compared to aspirin alone, the combination consistently reduced the composite of MACE or MALE in both IAD <15 mmHg (HR 0.74 [95% CI: 0.65-0.85], p < 0.0001, ARR = -23.1) and IAD>15 mmHg (HR 0.65 [95% CI: 0.44-0.96], p = 0.03; ARR = -32.6, p interaction = 0.53) groups. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike primary prevention populations, measuring IAD for risk stratification purposes does not appear to be useful in patients with established vascular disease.

A hybrid automated event adjudication system for clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: In clinical trials, event adjudication is a process to review and confirm the accuracy of outcomes reported by site investigators. Despite efforts to automate the communication between a clinical-data-and-coordination center and an event adjudication committee, the review and confirmation of outcomes, as the core function of the process, still fully rely on human labor. To address this issue, we present an automated event adjudication system and its application in two randomized controlled trials. METHODS: Centrally executed by a clinical-data-and-coordination center, the automated event adjudication system automatedly assessed and classified outcomes in a clinical data management system. By checking clinically predefined criteria, the automated event adjudication system either confirmed or unconfirmed an outcome and automatedly updated its status in the database. It also served as a management tool to assist staff to oversee the process of event adjudication. The system has been applied in: (1) the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial and (2) the New Approach riVaroxaban Inhibition of Factor Xa in a Global trial versus Aspirin to prevenT Embolism in Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source (NAVIGATE ESUS) trial. The automated event adjudication system first screened outcomes reported on a case report form and confirmed those with data matched to preset definitions. For selected primary efficacy, secondary, and safety outcomes, the unconfirmed cases were referred to a human event adjudication committee for a final decision. In the New Approach riVaroxaban Inhibition of Factor Xa in a Global trial versus Aspirin to prevenT Embolism in Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source (NAVIGATE ESUS) trial, human adjudicators were given priority to review cases, while the automated event adjudication system took the lead in the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial. RESULTS: Outcomes that were adjudicated in a hybrid model are discussed here. The COMPASS automated event adjudication system adjudicated 3283 primary efficacy outcomes and confirmed 1652 (50.3%): 132 (21.1%) strokes, 522 (53%) myocardial infarctions, and 998 (59.7%) causes of deaths. The NAVIGATE ESUS one adjudicated 737 cases of selected outcomes and confirmed 383 (52%): 219 (51.5%) strokes, 34 (42.5%) myocardial infarctions, 73 (54.9%) causes of deaths, and 57 (57.6%) major bleedings. After one deducts the time needed for migrating the system to a new study, the automated event adjudication system helped to reduce the time required for human review from approximately 1303 to 716.5 h for the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies trial and from 387 to 196 h for the New Approach riVaroxaban Inhibition of Factor Xa in a Global trial versus Aspirin to prevenT Embolism in Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source trial. CONCLUSION: The automated event adjudication system in combination with human adjudicators provides a streamlined and efficient approach to event adjudication in clinical trials. To immediately apply automated event adjudication, one can first consider the automated event adjudication system and involve human assistance for cases unconfirmed by the former.

Total events and net clinical benefit of rivaroxaban and aspirin in patients with chronic coronary or peripheral artery disease: The COMPASS trial.

BACKGROUND: Low dose rivaroxaban with aspirin reduced major cardiovascular events (MACE) compared to aspirin alone in patients with cardiovascular disease although effects on total events are unknown. METHODS: The COMPASS clinical trial randomized 27,395 participants with chronic coronary and/or peripheral artery disease to rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily alone, or aspirin 100 mg daily. We analyzed total (first and recurrent) MACE outcomes of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction, and the primary safety outcome of major bleeding. Exploratory analyses included on-treatment and net clinical benefit. Total MACE and safety events were modeled for each treatment. RESULTS: MACE events were lowest in rivaroxaban with aspirin (379 first MACE, 432 total MACE) compared with rivaroxaban (448 first, 508 total) or aspirin alone (496 first, 574 total). Rivaroxaban and aspirin reduced total MACE events compared with aspirin alone [HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66-0.85, P < .0001, number needed to treat for 2 years (NNT2y) of 63]. Total major bleeding was higher for rivaroxaban with aspirin compared to aspirin, but severe bleeding was not increased. The net clinical benefit of rivaroxaban plus aspirin was 20% higher compared with aspirin alone [HR 0.80 (95% CI 16.3%-31.6%)]. Rivaroxaban alone had no benefit on MACE outcomes compared with aspirin alone. MACE outcomes were similar for those on and off randomized treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Low dose rivaroxaban with aspirin significantly reduces first and total cardiovascular events compared with aspirin alone with a NNT2y of 63 and a 20% net clinical benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01776424. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01776424.

Health status and cognitive function for risk stratification in chronic coronary and peripheral artery disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: It is unclear whether health status and cognitive function assessments can augment traditional coronary artery disease (CAD) and peripheral artery disease (PAD) biomedical risk prediction frameworks. We examined the association between health status and cognitive function and subsequent adverse cardiovascular and limb events in CAD and PAD. METHODS AND RESULTS: Stable CAD and PAD patients from the international, multi-centre COMPASS trial completed the visual analogue scale (VAS) of the EQ-5D-3L to assess overall health status, and the Digit Symbol Substitution test (DSST) to assess cognitive function. Main outcomes were incident development of major adverse cardiovascular events, and the combined endpoint major adverse cardiovascular or limb events. The EQ VAS (per 10 unit increase) and DSST (per 5 unit increase) were added to fully adjusted (medications, demographics, cardiovascular history and risk factors) hierarchical Cox regression models. A total of 23 433 patients were in the CAD cohort and 6899 in the PAD cohort. Among both the CAD and PAD groups, higher scores on the EQ VAS (CAD: HR = 0.89, 95%CI 0.88-0.89; PAD HR = 0.89, 95%CI 0.88-0.89) and DSST (CAD HR = 0.95, 95%CI 0.94-0.95) (PAD HR = 0.95, 95%CI 0.94-0.95) were associated with a lower risk of a major adverse cardiovascular or limb events. Population attributable risks associated with the lower two quartiles vs. upper quartiles for the EQ-5D and DSST scores were 7% and 16%, respectively in the CAD cohort; and for PAD, at 14% and 18%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Adding health status and cognitive functioning information to biomedical evaluations can augment cardiovascular risk-stratification in CAD and PAD. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01776424.

In patients with heart and vascular disease, filling out quick standard test that evaluates your health status and completing a 2-min cognitive test that evaluates aspects such as speed and attention, reveals important information about your future heart and vascular risk. Lower scores on these tests were associated with a higher risk of dying from cardiovascular causes, risk of getting a heart attack, stroke, or amputation, even after controlling for many other known risk factors.These insights may help our understanding of who is at higher risk of future heart and vascular events, and may give us new angles for interventions that may help prevent this risk, such as whole person interventions improving physical fitness, mental health, and cognitive functioning.

The cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in the COMPASS trial.

AIMS: The Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial demonstrated that rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID with aspirin 100 mg was more effective than aspirin 100 mg daily alone for the prevention of cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke, or myocardial infarction in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). We aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban using patient-level data from the COMPASS trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed an in-trial analysis and extrapolated our results for 33 years using a two-state Markov model with a 1-year cycle length. Hospitalization events, procedures, and study drugs were documented for patients. We applied country-specific (Canada, France, and Germany) direct healthcare system costs (in USD) to healthcare resources consumed by patients. Average cost per patient during the trial (mean follow-up of 23 months), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and lifetime cost-effectiveness were calculated. Costs of events and procedures were reduced with rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID with aspirin. The addition of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID increased total costs for the combination group. Over a lifetime horizon (in trial +33 years), rivaroxaban plus aspirin was associated with 1.17 QALYs gained, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $3946/QALY, $9962/QALY, and $10 264/QALY in Canada, France, and Germany, respectively. PAD and polyvascular disease subgroups had lower ICERs. CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone reduces direct healthcare costs. After acquisition costs of rivaroxaban, the lifetime cost-effectiveness of 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin is highly cost-effective in Canada, France, and Germany.(COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01776424).