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.

Polypill with or without Aspirin in Persons without Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: A polypill comprising statins, multiple blood-pressure-lowering drugs, and aspirin has been proposed to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. METHODS: Using a 2-by-2-by-2 factorial design, we randomly assigned participants without cardiovascular disease who had an elevated INTERHEART Risk Score to receive a polypill (containing 40 mg of simvastatin, 100 mg of atenolol, 25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide, and 10 mg of ramipril) or placebo daily, aspirin (75 mg) or placebo daily, and vitamin D or placebo monthly. We report here the outcomes for the polypill alone as compared with matching placebo, for aspirin alone as compared with matching placebo, and for the polypill plus aspirin as compared with double placebo. For the polypill-alone and polypill-plus-aspirin comparisons, the primary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, resuscitated cardiac arrest, heart failure, or revascularization. For the aspirin comparison, the primary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 5713 participants underwent randomization, and the mean follow-up was 4.6 years. The low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level was lower by approximately 19 mg per deciliter and systolic blood pressure was lower by approximately 5.8 mm Hg with the polypill and with combination therapy than with placebo. The primary outcome for the polypill comparison occurred in 126 participants (4.4%) in the polypill group and in 157 (5.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 1.00). The primary outcome for the aspirin comparison occurred in 116 participants (4.1%) in the aspirin group and in 134 (4.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.10). The primary outcome for the polypill-plus-aspirin comparison occurred in 59 participants (4.1%) in the combined-treatment group and in 83 (5.8%) in the double-placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.97). The incidence of hypotension or dizziness was higher in groups that received the polypill than in their respective placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: Combined treatment with a polypill plus aspirin led to a lower incidence of cardiovascular events than did placebo among participants without cardiovascular disease who were at intermediate cardiovascular risk. (Funded by the Wellcome Trust and others; TIPS-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01646437.).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Rivaroxaban and aspirin vs. aspirin alone in Asian compared with non-Asian patients with chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral arterial disease: the COMPASS trial.

AIMS: It is unknown whether Asian and non-Asian patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease derive similar benefits from long-term antithrombotic therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: In patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) and/or peripheral artery disease (PAD) enrolled in The Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies trial, the effects of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg b.i.d. plus aspirin 100 mg o.d. were compared with those of aspirin 100 mg o.d. in Asian vs. non-Asian patients (race was self-identified). Asians (n = 4269) vs. non-Asians (n = 23 126) had similar rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) (4.85% vs. 4.83%, P = 0.30) and modified International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) major bleeding (2.72% vs. 2.58%, P = 0.22), but higher rates of intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) (0.63% vs. 0.29%, P = 0.01) and minor bleeding (13.61% vs. 6.49%, P < 0.001). In Asians vs. non-Asians, the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin compared with aspirin alone produced consistent reductions in MACE [Asians: hazard ratio (HR): 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45-0.90; non-Asians: HR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.67-0.90; P(heterogeneity) = 0.29], increases in modified ISTH major bleeding (Asians: HR 2.24, 95% CI: 1.40-3.58; non-Asians: HR: 1.60, 95% CI: 1.30-1.97; P = 0.20), and net clinical outcome (Asians: HR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.56-1.05; non-Asians: HR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.70-0.93, P = 0.78), but borderline higher rates of ICH (Asians: HR: 3.50, 95% CI: 0.98-12.56; non-Asians: HR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.43, 1.53; P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Asian compared with non-Asian patients with chronic CAD and/or PAD have higher rates of ICH and minor bleeding. The combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin vs. aspirin alone produces similar effects for MACE, modified ISTH major bleeding, and net clinical outcome but may be associated with higher rates of ICH in Asian patients.

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.

Fixed-dose combination therapies with and without aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: an individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In randomised controlled trials, fixed-dose combination treatments (or polypills) have been shown to reduce a composite of cardiovascular disease outcomes in primary prevention. However, whether or not aspirin should be included, effects on specific outcomes, and effects in key subgroups are unknown. METHODS: We did an individual participant data meta-analysis of large randomised controlled trials (each with ≥1000 participants and ≥2 years of follow-up) of a fixed-dose combination treatment strategy versus control in a primary cardiovascular disease prevention population. We included trials that evaluated a fixed-dose combination strategy of at least two blood pressure lowering agents plus a statin (with or without aspirin), compared with a control strategy (either placebo or usual care). The primary outcome was time to first occurrence of a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or arterial revascularisation. Additional outcomes included individual cardiovascular outcomes and death from any cause. Outcomes were also evaluated in groups stratified by the inclusion of aspirin in the fixed-dose treatment strategy, and effect sizes were estimated in prespecified subgroups based on risk factors. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to compare strategies. FINDINGS: Three large randomised trials were included in the analysis (TIPS-3, HOPE-3, and PolyIran), with a total of 18 162 participants. Mean age was 63·0 years (SD 7·1), and 9038 (49·8%) participants were female. Estimated 10-year cardiovascular disease risk for the population was 17·7% (8·7). During a median follow-up of 5 years, the primary outcome occurred in 276 (3·0%) participants in the fixed-dose combination strategy group compared with 445 (4·9%) in the control group (hazard ratio 0·62, 95% CI 0·53-0·73, p<0·0001). Reductions were also observed for the separate components of the primary outcome: myocardial infarction (0·52, 0·38-0·70), revascularisation (0·54, 0·36-0·80), stroke (0·59, 0·45-0·78), and cardiovascular death (0·65, 0·52-0·81). Significant reductions in the primary outcome and its components were observed in the analyses of fixed-dose combination strategies with and without aspirin, with greater reductions for strategies including aspirin. Treatment effects were similar at different lipid and blood pressure levels, and in the presence or absence of diabetes, smoking, or obesity. Gastrointestinal bleeding was uncommon but slightly more frequent in the fixed-dose combination strategy with aspirin group versus control (19 [0·4%] vs 11 [0·2%], p=0·15). The frequencies of haemorrhagic stroke (10 [0·2%] vs 15 [0·3%]), fatal bleeding (two [<0·1%] vs four [0·1%]), and peptic ulcer disease (32 [0·7%] vs 34 [0·8%]) were low and did not differ significantly between groups. Dizziness was more common with fixed-dose combination treatment (1060 [11·7%] vs 834 [9·2%], p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Fixed-dose combination treatment strategies substantially reduce cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularisation, and cardiovascular death in primary cardiovascular disease prevention. These benefits are consistent irrespective of cardiometabolic risk factors. FUNDING: Population Health Research Institute.

Impact of Bioelectrical Impedance-Guided Fluid Management and Vitamin D Supplementation on Left Ventricular Mass in Patients Receiving Peritoneal Dialysis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Hypervolemia and vitamin D deficiency occur frequently in patients receiving peritoneal dialysis and may contribute to left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy. The effect of bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA)-guided volume management or vitamin D supplementation on LV mass among those receiving peritoneal dialysis is uncertain. STUDY DESIGN: Two-by-two factorial randomized controlled trial. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-five patients receiving maintenance peritoneal dialysis. INTERVENTION: BIA-guided volume management versus usual care and oral cholecalciferol 50,000 U weekly for 8 weeks followed by 10,000 U weekly for 44 weeks or matching placebo. OUTCOME: Change in LV mass at 1 year measured by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: Total body water decreased by 0.9 + 2.4 (SD) L in the BIA group compared with a 1.5 ± 3.4 L increase in the usual care group (adjusted between-group difference: -2.4 [95% CI, -4.1 to -0.68] L, P = 0.01). LV mass increased by 1.3 ± 14.3 g in the BIA group and decreased by 2.4 ± 37.7 g in the usual care group (between-group difference: +2.2 [95% CI, -13.9 to 18.3] g, P = 0.8). Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration increased by a mean of 17.2 ± 30.8 nmol/L in the cholecalciferol group and declined by 8.2 ± 24.3 nmol/L in the placebo group (between-group difference: 28.3 [95% CI, 17.2-39.4] nmol/L, P < 0.001). LV mass decreased by 3.0 ± 28.1 g in the cholecalciferol group and increased by 2.0 ± 31.2 g in the placebo group (between-group difference: -4.5 [95% CI, -20.4 to 11.5] g, P = 0.6). LIMITATIONS: Relatively small sample size with larger than expected variation in change in LV mass. CONCLUSIONS: BIA-guided volume management had a modest impact on volume status with no effect on the change in LV mass. Vitamin D supplementation increased serum vitamin D concentration but had no effect on LV mass. FUNDING: Unrestricted Baxter International extramural grant and the Kidney Foundation of Canada. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT01045980.

Are clinical trials randomising households to lifestyle interventions to delay cognitive decline feasible? A pilot study to determine the beliefs, preferences, and deterrents for households impacted by dementia based on semi-structured interviews.

INTRODUCTION: While lifestyle risk factors are implicated in the development and progression of cognitive impairment, interventional trials of individual participants have yielded unconvincing evidence. We sought to explore the development of lifestyle interventions targeting the household-unit. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were carried out among eight households affected by cognitive impairment (i.e. member of the household had cognitive impairment). Interviews took place online using a secure, web-based video platform recommended for patient clinician interaction. Interview content was analysed, and important themes identified. RESULTS: Eighteen participants were interviewed within households, of which eight (one per household) had cognitive impairment and others were spouses or first-degree relatives living in the same home. Several themes emerged; 1) household members without cognitive impairment were more likely to report poor sleep habits, and sleep was perceived to be the hardest behaviour to change; 2) diet generated most interest as a potential lifestyle intervention target as most participants believed there is a strong link with nutrition and cognition; 3) physical activity is challenging to adapt due to lack of motivation and focus when individuals are cognitively impaired. Barriers to study participation, including risk of harm, complexity of intervention and deviation from routine emerged during discussions. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified beliefs and preferences of households towards lifestyle intervention trials. Findings from this study may be used to inform future clinical trial protocols and future qualitative studies should explore acceptability and feasibility of digital intervention applications.

Lowering cholesterol, blood pressure, or both to prevent cardiovascular events: results of 8.7 years of follow-up of Heart Outcomes Evaluation Prevention (HOPE)-3 study participants.

AIMS: Rosuvastatin (10 mg per day) compared with placebo reduced major adverse cardiovascular (CV) events by 24% in 12 705 participants at intermediate CV risk after 5.6 years. There was no benefit of blood pressure (BP) lowering treatment in the overall group, but a reduction in events in the third of participants with elevated systolic BP. After cessation of all the trial medications, we examined whether the benefits observed during the active treatment phase were sustained, enhanced, or attenuated. METHODS AND RESULTS: After the randomized treatment period (5.6 years), participants were invited to participate in 3.1 further years of observation (total 8.7 years). The first co-primary outcome for the entire length of follow-up was the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or CV death [major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE)-1], and the second was MACE-1 plus resuscitated cardiac arrest, heart failure, or coronary revascularization (MACE-2). In total, 9326 (78%) of 11 994 surviving Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE)-3 subjects consented to participate in extended follow-up. During 3.1 years of post-trial observation (total follow-up of 8.7 years), participants originally randomized to rosuvastatin compared with placebo had a 20% additional reduction in MACE-1 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64-0.99] and a 17% additional reduction in MACE-2 (95% CI 0.68-1.01). Therefore, over the 8.7 years of follow-up, there was a 21% reduction in MACE-1 (95% CI 0.69-0.90, P = 0.005) and 21% reduction in MACE-2 (95% CI 0.69-0.89, P = 0.002). There was no benefit of BP lowering in the overall study either during the active or post-trial observation period, however, a 24% reduction in MACE-1 was observed over 8.7 years. CONCLUSION: The CV benefits of rosuvastatin, and BP lowering in those with elevated systolic BP, compared with placebo continue to accrue for at least 3 years after cessation of randomized treatment in individuals without cardiovascular disease indicating a legacy effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00468923.

Functional Abilities of an International Post-Stroke Population: Standard Assessment of Global Everyday Activities (SAGEA) Scale.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Function is an important outcome after stroke; traditional assessments may not capture functional deficits important to patients. We examined the validity of the Standard Assessment of Global Everyday Activities (SAGEA), a patient-reported outcome that assesses activities important to patients and for use in international clinical trials. METHODS: The NAVIGATE-ESUS trial evaluated rivaroxaban compared to aspirin in preventing recurrent stroke in 7213 participants. The Modified Rankin Scale (mRS), the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), and the SAGEA were collected at entry. Chi square tests were used to compare proportions and Spearman rank correlations were used to compare between measures. SAGEA was compared to the Modified Frailty Index (MFI) and the occurrence of infarct to examine criterion validity RESULTS: Participants were 67 years, 2/3 were male, and at baseline 30% had no disability and 58% had slight disability according to mRS scores. SAGEA was weakly correlated with the mRS (r=0.37), the NIHSS (r=0.29) and the MFI (r=0.30). Of the 2154 with an mRS score of 0, 61% reported difficulty on the SAGEA. The largest discrepancies between SAGEA and other measures were because of cognitive functional deficits detected by the SAGEA that were not identified on other assessments. A larger number of MRI identified infarcts (acute and covert) were associated with a higher SAGEA score (p=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: The SAGEA is a simple, globally applicable measure of cognitive and functional abilities that identifies issues that other commonly used assessments of disability and function do not capture.

Rivaroxaban versus aspirin on functional and cognitive outcomes after embolic stroke of undetermined source: NAVIGATE ESUS trial.

BACKGROUND: The effect of interventions on functional impairment is an important outcome in stroke prevention trials and should be considered as an adjunct to counting discrete events. In the NAVIGATE-ESUS trial, 7213 patients with recent embolic strokes of undetermined source were randomized to rivaroxaban (15 mg once daily) or aspirin (100 mg daily). After 11 months there was no effect on the prevention of recurrent stroke. AIMS: To determine the effect of rivaroxaban compared to aspirin on functional and cognitive outcomes. METHODS: Function and cognition were measured at baseline, 1 year, and study end using the Standard Assessment of Global Everyday Activities (SAGEA), a 15-item scale assessing cognitive, instrumental, and basic activities of daily living as well as mobility, and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Changes in scores were calculated by subtracting either study end or 1-year scores from baseline, and differences in distributions were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. SAGEA and MoCA scores were also correlated with recurrent stroke. RESULTS: Follow-up SAGEA scores were available in 6378 (88%) participants. There was no difference in change in function for those allocated to rivaroxaban compared to aspirin (Mann-Whitney U test, p = 0.8), with both distributions having a median (25p,75p) change of 0 (-2,1). Overall, more of those who experienced a recurrent stroke (n=247; mostly minor ischemic), reported functional difficulty at study end versus entry, compared with those who did not (51% versus 30%, chi-square test, p< 0.001), and this was consistent across global regions. There was no difference in the change in cognition by treatment group, nor were recurrent strokes associated with a change in cognition. CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban, compared to aspirin, was not associated with changes in functional or cognitive status in patients with recent ESUS. The SAGEA scale detected changes in functional status associated with recurrent strokes in an international stroke population.

Role of Combination Antiplatelet and Anticoagulation Therapy in Diabetes Mellitus and Cardiovascular Disease: Insights From the COMPASS Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with established coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease often have diabetes mellitus. These patients are at high risk of future vascular events. METHODS: In a prespecified analysis of the COMPASS trial (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies), we compared the effects of rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg daily) versus placebo plus aspirin in patients with diabetes mellitus versus without diabetes mellitus in preventing major vascular events. The primary efficacy end point was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Secondary end points included all-cause mortality and all major vascular events (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or major adverse limb events, including amputation). The primary safety end point was a modification of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria for major bleeding. RESULTS: There were 10 341 patients with diabetes mellitus and 17 054 without diabetes mellitus in the overall trial. A consistent and similar relative risk reduction was seen for benefit of rivaroxaban plus aspirin (n=9152) versus placebo plus aspirin (n=9126) in patients both with (n=6922) and without (n=11 356) diabetes mellitus for the primary efficacy end point (hazard ratio, 0.74, P=0.002; and hazard ratio, 0.77, P=0.005, respectively, Pinteraction=0.77) and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.81, P=0.05; and hazard ratio, 0.84, P=0.09, respectively; Pinteraction=0.82). However, although the absolute risk reductions appeared numerically larger in patients with versus without diabetes mellitus, both subgroups derived similar benefit (2.3% versus 1.4% for the primary efficacy end point at 3 years, Gail-Simon qualitative Pinteraction<0.0001; 1.9% versus 0.6% for all-cause mortality, Pinteraction=0.02; 2.7% versus 1.7% for major vascular events, Pinteraction<0.0001). Because the bleeding hazards were similar among patients with and without diabetes mellitus, the prespecified net benefit for rivaroxaban appeared particularly favorable in the patients with diabetes mellitus (2.7% versus 1.0%; Gail-Simon qualitative Pinteraction=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In stable atherosclerosis, the combination of aspirin plus rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily provided a similar relative degree of benefit on coronary, cerebrovascular, and peripheral end points in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Given their higher baseline risk, the absolute benefits appeared larger in those with diabetes mellitus, including a 3-fold greater reduction in all-cause mortality. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01776424.

Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin Versus Aspirin Alone in Patients With Prior Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (COMPASS-PCI).

BACKGROUND: The COMPASS trial (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People using Anticoagulation Strategies) demonstrated that dual pathway inhibition (DPI) with rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg once daily versus aspirin 100 mg once daily reduced the primary major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, as well as, mortality, in patients with chronic coronary syndromes or peripheral arterial disease. Whether this remains true in patients with a history of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unknown. METHODS: In a prespecified subgroup analysis from COMPASS, we examined the outcomes of patients with chronic coronary syndrome with or without a previous PCI treated with DPI versus aspirin alone. Among patients with a previous PCI, we studied the effects of treatment according to the timing of the previous PCI. RESULTS: Of the 27 395 patients in COMPASS, 16 560 patients with a chronic coronary syndrome were randomly assigned to DPI or aspirin, and, of these, 9862 (59.6%) had previous PCI (mean age 68.2±7.8, female 19.4%, diabetes mellitus 35.7%, previous myocardial infarction 74.8%, multivessel PCI 38.0%). Average time from PCI to randomization was 5.4 years (SD, 4.4) and follow-up was 1.98 (SD, 0.72) years. Regardless of previous PCI, DPI versus aspirin produced consistent reductions in MACE (PCI: 4.0% versus 5.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.74 [95% CI, 0.61-0.88]; no PCI: 4.4% versus 5.7%; HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.61-0.94], P-interaction=0.85) and mortality (PCI: 2.5% versus 3.5%; HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.58-0.92]; no PCI: 4.1% versus 5.0%; HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.64-1.00], P-interaction=0.59), but increased major bleeding (PCI: 3.3% versus 2.0%; HR, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.34-2.21]; no PCI: 2.9% versus 1.8%; HR, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.15-2.17], P-interaction=0.68). In those with previous PCI, DPI compared with aspirin produced consistent (robust) reductions in MACE irrespective of time since previous PCI (as early as 1 year and as far as 10 years; P-interaction=0.65), irrespective of having a previous myocardial infarction (P-interaction=0.64). CONCLUSIONS: DPI compared with aspirin produced consistent reductions in MACE and mortality but with increased major bleeding with or without previous PCI. Among those with previous PCI 1 year and beyond, the effects on MACE and mortality were consistent irrespective of time since last PCI. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01776424.

Antihypertensives and Statin Therapy for Primary Stroke Prevention: A Secondary Analysis of the HOPE-3 Trial.

Background and Purpose: The HOPE-3 trial (Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation­3) found that antihypertensive therapy combined with a statin reduced first stroke among people at intermediate cardiovascular risk. We report secondary analyses of stroke outcomes by stroke subtype, predictors, treatment effects in key subgroups. Methods: Using a 2-by-2 factorial design, 12 705 participants from 21 countries with vascular risk factors but without overt cardiovascular disease were randomized to candesartan 16 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg daily or placebo and to rosuvastatin 10 mg daily or placebo. The effect of the interventions on stroke subtypes was assessed. Results: Participants were 66 years old and 46% were women. Baseline blood pressure (138/82 mm Hg) was reduced by 6.0/3.0 mm Hg and LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; 3.3 mmol/L) was reduced by 0.90 mmol/L on active treatment. During 5.6 years of follow-up, 169 strokes occurred (117 ischemic, 29 hemorrhagic, 23 undetermined). Blood pressure lowering did not significantly reduce stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.59­1.08]), ischemic stroke (HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.55­1.15]), hemorrhagic stroke (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.34­1.48]), or strokes of undetermined origin (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.41­2.08]). Rosuvastatin significantly reduced strokes (HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.52­0.95]), with reductions mainly in ischemic stroke (HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.37­0.78]) but did not significantly affect hemorrhagic (HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.59­2.54]) or strokes of undetermined origin (HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 0.57­2.95]). The combination of both interventions compared with double placebo substantially and significantly reduced strokes (HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.36­0.87]) and ischemic strokes (HR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.23­0.72]). Conclusions: Among people at intermediate cardiovascular risk but without overt cardiovascular disease, rosuvastatin 10 mg daily significantly reduced first stroke. Blood pressure lowering combined with rosuvastatin reduced ischemic stroke by 59%. Both therapies are safe and generally well tolerated. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00468923.

Stroke systems of care in low-income and middle-income countries: challenges and opportunities.

The burden of stroke is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) than in high-income countries and is rising. Even though there are global policies and guidelines for implementing stroke care, there are many challenges in setting up stroke services in LMICs. Despite these challenges, there are many models of stroke care available in LMICs-eg, multidisciplinary team care led by a stroke neurologist, specialist-led care by neurologists, physician-led care, hub and spoke models incorporating stroke telemedicine (ie, telestroke), and task sharing involving community health workers. Alternative strategies have been developed, such as reorganising the existing hospital infrastructure by training health professionals to implement protocol-driven care. The future challenge is to identify what elements of organised stroke care can be implemented to make the largest gain. Simple interventions such as swallowing assessments, bowel and bladder care, mobility assessments, and consistent secondary prevention can prove to be key elements to improving post-discharge morbidity and mortality in LMICs.