Optimising prediction of mortality, stroke, and major bleeding for patients with atrial fibrillation: validation of the GARFIELD-AF tool in UK primary care electronic records.

BACKGROUND: The GARFIELD-AF tool is a novel risk tool that simultaneously assesses the risk of all-cause mortality, stroke or systemic embolism, and major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). AIM: To validate the GARFIELD-AF tool using UK primary care electronic records. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) linked with Hospital Episode Statistics data and Office for National Statistics mortality data. METHOD: Discrimination was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC) and calibration was evaluated using calibration-in-the-large regression and calibration plots. RESULTS: A total of 486 818 patients aged ≥18 years with incident diagnosis of non-valvular AF between 2 January 1998 and 31 July 2020 were included; 50.6% (n = 246 425/486 818) received anticoagulation at diagnosis The GARFIELD- AF models outperformed the CHA2DS2VASc and HAS-BLED scores in discrimination ability of death, stroke, and major bleeding at all the time points. The AUC for events at 1 year for the 2017 models were: death 0.747 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.744 to 0.751) versus 0.635 (95% CI = 0.631 to 0.639) for CHA2DS2VASc; stroke 0.666 (95% CI = 0.663 to 0.669) versus 0.625 (95% CI = 0.622 to 0.628) for CHA2DS2VASc; and major bleeding 0.602 (95% CI = 0.598 to 0.606) versus 0.558 (95% CI = 0.554 to 0.562) for HAS- BLED. Calibration between predicted and Kaplan- Meier observed events was inadequate with the GARFIELD-AF models. CONCLUSION: The GARFIELD-AF models were superior to the CHA2DS2VASc score for discriminating stroke and death and superior to the HAS-BLED score for discriminating major bleeding. The models consistently underpredicted the level of risk, suggesting that a recalibration is needed to optimise its use in the UK population.

ICSH guidance for INR and D-dimer testing using point of care testing in primary care.

This guideline has been written on behalf of the International Council for Standardisation in Haematology (ICSH) and focuses on two point of care haematology tests used within primary care, namely International Normalised Ratio (INR) and D-dimer. Primary care covers out of hospital settings and can include General Practice (GP), Pharmacy and other non-hospital settings (although these guidelines would also be applicable to hospital out-patient settings). The recommendations are based on published data in peer reviewed literature and expert opinion; they should supplement regional requirements, regulations or standards.

Two-year outcomes of UK patients newly diagnosed with atrial fibrillation: findings from the prospective observational cohort study GARFIELD-AF.

BACKGROUND: The outcomes of patients newly diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (AF) following the introduction of direct-acting oral anticoagulants are not well known. AIM: To determine the 2-year outcomes of patients newly diagnosed with AF, and the effectiveness of oral anticoagulants in everyday practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a prospective observational cohort study in UK primary care. METHOD: In total, 3574 patients aged ≥18 years with a new AF diagnosis were enrolled. A propensity score was applied using an overlap weighting scheme to obtain unbiased estimates of the treatment effect of anticoagulation versus no anticoagulation on the occurrence of death, non-haemorrhagic stroke/systemic embolism, and major bleeding within 2 years of diagnosis. RESULTS: Overall, 65.8% received anticoagulant therapy, 20.8% received an antiplatelet only, and 13.4% received neither. During the study period, the overall incidence rates of all-cause mortality, non-haemorrhagic stroke/systemic embolism, and major bleeding were 4.15 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.69 to 4.65), 1.45 (95% CI = 1.19 to 1.77), and 1.21 (95% CI = 0.97 to 1.50) per 100 person-years, respectively. Anticoagulation treatment compared with no anticoagulation treatment was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.70 (95% CI = 0.53 to 0.93), significantly lower risk of non-haemorrhagic stroke/systemic embolism (aHR 0.39, 95% CI = 0.24 to 0.62), and a non-significant higher risk of major bleeding (aHR 1.31, 95% CI = 0.77 to 2.24). CONCLUSION: The data support a benefit of anticoagulation in reducing stroke and death, without an increased risk of a major bleed in patients with new-onset AF. Anticoagulation treatment in patients at high risk of stroke who are not receiving anticoagulation may further improve outcomes.

Aspirin to target arterial events in chronic kidney disease (ATTACK): study protocol for a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint, parallel group trial of low-dose aspirin vs. standard care for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in people with chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a very common long-term condition and powerful risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Low-dose aspirin is of proven benefit in the secondary prevention of myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke in people with pre-existing CVD. However, in people without CVD, the rates of MI and stroke are much lower, and the benefits of aspirin in the primary prevention of CVD are largely balanced by an increased risk of bleeding. People with CKD are at greatly increased risk of CVD and so the absolute benefits of aspirin are likely to be greater than in lower-risk groups, even if the relative benefits are the same. Post hoc evidence suggests the relative benefits may be greater in the CKD population but the risk of bleeding may also be higher. A definitive study of aspirin for primary prevention in this high-risk group, recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in 2014, has never been conducted. The question has global significance given the rising burden of CKD worldwide and the low cost of aspirin. METHODS: ATTACK is a pragmatic multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint adjudication superiority trial of aspirin 75 mg daily vs. standard care for the primary prevention of CVD in 25,210 people aged 18 years and over with CKD recruited from UK Primary Care. Participants aged 18 years and over with CKD (GFR category G1-G4) will be identified in Primary Care and followed up using routinely collected data and annual questionnaires for an average of 5 years. The primary outcome is the time to first major vascular event (composite of non-fatal MI, non-fatal stroke and cardiovascular death [excluding confirmed intracranial haemorrhage and other fatal cardiovascular haemorrhage]). Deaths from other causes (including fatal bleeding) will be treated as competing events. The study will continue until 1827 major vascular events have occurred. The principal safety outcome is major intracranial and extracranial bleeding; this is hypothesised to be increased in those randomised to take aspirin. The key consideration is then whether and to what extent the benefits of aspirin from the expected reduction in CVD events exceed the risks of major bleeding. DISCUSSION: This will be the first definitive trial of aspirin for primary CVD prevention in CKD patients. The research will be of great interest to clinicians, guideline groups and policy-makers, in the UK and globally, particularly given the high and rising prevalence of CKD that is driven by population ageing and epidemics of obesity and diabetes. The low cost of aspirin means that a positive result would be of relevance to low- and middle-income countries and the impact in the developed world less diluted by any inequalities in health care access. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: ISRCTN40920200 . EudraCT: 2018-000644-26 . CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT03796156.

GARFIELD-AF risk score for mortality, stroke, and bleeding within 2 years in patients with atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: To determine whether the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF) integrated risk tool predicts mortality, non-haemorrhagic stroke/systemic embolism, and major bleeding for up to 2 years after new-onset AF and to assess how this risk tool performs compared with CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED. METHODS AND RESULTS: Potential predictors of events included demographic and clinical characteristics, choice of treatment, and lifestyle factors. A Cox proportional hazards model was identified for each outcome by least absolute shrinkage and selection operator methods. Indices were evaluated in comparison with CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED risk predictors. Models were validated internally and externally in ORBIT-AF and Danish nationwide registries. Among the 52 080 patients enrolled in GARFIELD-AF, 52 032 had follow-up data. The GARFIELD-AF risk tool outperformed CHA2DS2-VASc for all-cause mortality in all cohorts. The GARFIELD-AF risk score was superior to CHA2DS2-VASc for non-haemorrhagic stroke, and it outperformed HAS-BLED for major bleeding in internal validation and in the Danish AF cohort. In very low- to low-risk patients [CHA2DS2-VASc 0 or 1 (men) and 1 or 2 (women)], the GARFIELD-AF risk score offered strong discriminatory value for all the endpoints when compared to CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED. The GARFIELD-AF tool also included the effect of oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy, thus allowing clinicians to compare the expected outcome of different anticoagulant treatment decisions [i.e. no OAC, non-vitamin K antagonist (VKA) oral anticoagulants, or VKAs]. CONCLUSIONS: The GARFIELD-AF risk tool outperformed CHA2DS2-VASc at predicting death and non-haemorrhagic stroke, and it outperformed HAS-BLED for major bleeding in overall as well as in very low- to low-risk group patients with AF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF: NCT01090362, ORBIT-AF I: NCT01165710; ORBIT-AF II: NCT01701817.

Cluster randomised controlled trial of screening for atrial fibrillation in people aged 70 years and over to reduce stroke: protocol for the pilot study for the SAFER trial.

INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia associated with 30% of strokes, as well as other cardiovascular disease, dementia and death. AF meets many criteria for screening, but there is limited evidence that AF screening reduces stroke. Consequently, no countries recommend national screening programmes for AF. The Screening for Atrial Fibrillation with ECG to Reduce stroke (SAFER) trial aims to determine whether screening for AF is effective at reducing risk of stroke. The aim of the pilot study is to assess feasibility of the main trial and inform implementation of screening and trial procedures. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: SAFER is planned to be a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) of over 100 000 participants aged 70 years and over, not on long-term anticoagulation therapy at baseline, with an average follow-up of 5 years. Participants are asked to record four traces every day for 3 weeks on a hand-held single-lead ECG device. Cardiologists remotely confirm episodes of AF identified by the device algorithm, and general practitioners follow-up with anticoagulation as appropriate. The pilot study is a cluster RCT in 36 UK general practices, randomised 2:1 control to intervention, recruiting approximately 12 600 participants. Pilot study outcomes include AF detection rate, anticoagulation uptake and other parameters to incorporate into sample size calculations for the main trial. Questionnaires sent to a sample of participants will assess impact of screening on psychological health. Process evaluation and qualitative studies will underpin implementation of screening during the main trial. An economic evaluation using the pilot data will confirm whether it is plausible that screening might be cost-effective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The London-Central Research Ethics Committee (19/LO/1597) and Confidentiality Advisory Group (19/CAG/0226) provided ethical approval. Dissemination will be via publications, patient-friendly summaries, reports and engagement with the UK National Screening Committee. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN72104369.

Cardioversion in patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation: observational study using prospectively collected registry data.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent cardioversion compared with those who did not have cardioverson in a large dataset of patients with recent onset non-valvular atrial fibrillation. DESIGN: Observational study using prospectively collected registry data (Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-AF-GARFIELD-AF). SETTING: 1317 participating sites in 35 countries. PARTICIPANTS: 52 057 patients aged 18 years and older with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (up to six weeks' duration) and at least one investigator determined stroke risk factor. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparisons were made between patients who received cardioversion and those who had no cardioversion at baseline, and between patients who received direct current cardioversion and those who had pharmacological cardioversion. Overlap propensity weighting with Cox proportional hazards models was used to evaluate the effect of cardioversion on clinical endpoints (all cause mortality, non-haemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism, and major bleeding), adjusting for baseline risk and patient selection. RESULTS: 44 201 patients were included in the analysis comparing cardioversion and no cardioversion, and of these, 6595 (14.9%) underwent cardioversion at baseline. The propensity score weighted hazard ratio for all cause mortality in the cardioversion group was 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.86) from baseline to one year follow-up and 0.77 (0.64 to 0.93) from one year to two year follow-up. Of the 6595 patients who had cardioversion at baseline, 299 had a follow-up cardioversion more than 48 days after enrolment. 7175 patients were assessed in the analysis comparing type of cardioversion: 2427 (33.8%) received pharmacological cardioversion and 4748 (66.2%) had direct current cardioversion. During one year follow-up, event rates (per 100 patient years) for all cause mortality in patients who received direct current and pharmacological cardioversion were 1.36 (1.13 to 1.64) and 1.70 (1.35 to 2.14), respectively. CONCLUSION: In this large dataset of patients with recent onset non-valvular atrial fibrillation, a small proportion were treated with cardioversion. Direct current cardioversion was performed twice as often as pharmacological cardioversion, and there appeared to be no major difference in outcome events for these two cardioversion modalities. For the overall cardioversion group, after adjustments for confounders, a significantly lower risk of mortality was found in patients who received early cardioversion compared with those who did not receive early cardioversion. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01090362.

Risks associated with discontinuation of oral anticoagulation in newly diagnosed patients with atrial fibrillation: Results from the GARFIELD-AF Registry.

BACKGROUND: Oral anticoagulation (OAC) in atrial fibrillation (AF) reduces the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (SE). The impact of OAC discontinuation is less well documented. OBJECTIVE: Investigate outcomes of patients prospectively enrolled in the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the Field-Atrial Fibrillation study who discontinued OAC. METHODS: Oral anticoagulation discontinuation was defined as cessation of treatment for ≥7 consecutive days. Adjusted outcome risks were assessed in 23 882 patients with 511 days of median follow-up after discontinuation. RESULTS: Patients who discontinued (n = 3114, 13.0%) had a higher risk (hazard ratio [95% CI]) of all-cause death (1.62 [1.25-2.09]), stroke/systemic embolism (SE) (2.21 [1.42-3.44]) and myocardial infarction (MI) (1.85 [1.09-3.13]) than patients who did not, whether OAC was restarted or not. This higher risk of outcomes after discontinuation was similar for patients treated with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) (p for interactions range = 0.145-0.778). Bleeding history (1.43 [1.14-1.80]), paroxysmal vs. persistent AF (1.15 [1.02-1.29]), emergency room care setting vs. office (1.37 [1.18-1.59]), major, clinically relevant nonmajor, and minor bleeding (10.02 [7.19-13.98], 2.70 [2.24-3.25] and 1.90 [1.61-2.23]), stroke/SE (4.09 [2.55-6.56]), MI (2.74 [1.69-4.43]), and left atrial appendage procedures (4.99 [1.82-13.70]) were predictors of discontinuation. Age (0.84 [0.81-0.88], per 10-year increase), history of stroke/transient ischemic attack (0.81 [0.71-0.93]), diabetes (0.88 [0.80-0.97]), weeks from AF onset to treatment (0.96 [0.93-0.99] per week), and permanent vs. persistent AF (0.73 [0.63-0.86]) were predictors of lower discontinuation rates. CONCLUSIONS: In GARFIELD-AF, the rate of discontinuation was 13.0%. Discontinuation for ≥7 consecutive days was associated with significantly higher all-cause mortality, stroke/SE, and MI risk. Caution should be exerted when considering any OAC discontinuation beyond 7 days.

Comparative effectiveness of oral anticoagulants in everyday practice.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the comparative effectiveness of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), direct thrombin inhibitors (DTIs) and factor Xa inhibitors (FXaI) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) at risk of stroke in everyday practice. METHODS: Data from patients with AF and Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age 75 years, Diabetes mellitus, prior Stroke, TIA, or thromboembolism, Vascular disease, Age 65-74 years, Sex category (CHA2DS2-VASc) score ≥2 (excluding gender) in the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation registry were analysed using an improved method of propensity weighting, overlap weights and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: All-cause mortality, non-haemorrhagic stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding over 2 years were compared in 25 551 patients, 7162 (28.0%) not treated with oral anticoagulant (OAC) and 18 389 (72.0%) treated with OAC (FXaI (41.8%), DTI (11.4%) and VKA (46.8%)). OAC treatment compared with no OAC treatment was associated with decreased risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.82 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.91)) and non-haemorrhagic stroke/SE (HR 0.71 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.88)) but increased risk of major bleeding (HR 1.46 (95% CI 1.15 to 1.86)). Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) use compared with no OAC treatment was associated with lower risks of all-cause mortality and non-haemorrhagic stroke/SE (HR 0.67 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.77)) and 0.65 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.86)) respectively, with no increase in major bleeding (HR 1.10 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.47)). NOAC use compared with VKA use was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality and major bleeding (rates/100 patient-years 3.6 (95% CI 3.3 to 3.9) vs 4.8 (95% CI 4.5 to 5.2) and 1.0 (95% CI 0.9 to 1.1) vs 1.4 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.6); HR 0.79 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.89) and 0.77 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.98) respectively), with similar risk of non-haemorrhagic stroke/SE (rates/100 patient-years 0.8 (95% CI 0.7 to 0.9) versus 1.0 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.1); HR 0.96 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.25). CONCLUSION: Important benefits in terms of mortality and major bleeding were observed with NOAC versus VKA with no difference among NOAC subtypes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01090362.

GARFIELD-AF: a worldwide prospective registry of patients with atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke.

The Global Anticoagulant Registry in the Field-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF) examined real-world practice in a total of 57,149 (5069 retrospective, 52,080 prospective) patients with newly diagnosed AF at risk of stroke/systemic embolism, enrolled at over 1000 centers in 35 countries. It aimed to capture data on AF burden, patients' clinical profile, patterns of clinical practice and antithrombotic management, focusing on stroke/systemic embolism prevention, uptake of new oral anticoagulants, impact on death and bleeding. GARFIELD-AF set new standards for quality of data collection and analysis. A total of 36 peer-reviewed articles were already published and 73 abstracts presented at international congresses, covering treatment strategies, geographical variations in baseline risk and therapies, adverse outcomes and common comorbidities such as heart failure. A risk prediction tool as well as innovative observational studies and artificial intelligence methodologies are currently being developed by GARFIELD-AF researchers. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01090362 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Impact of COPD case finding on clinical care: a prospective analysis of the TargetCOPD trial.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) case finding on clinical care. DESIGN: We conducted a prospective observational analysis of data from a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care in the West Midlands, UK (TargetCOPD). This compared alternative methods of COPD case finding against usual care. Data were extracted from electronic healthcare records and self-reported questionnaires for a subset of patients with newly diagnosed COPD. SETTING: 50 general practices that participated in the TargetCOPD trial. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 40-79 years newly identified with COPD by targeted case finding or by usual care, from 10 August 2012 to 22 June 2014. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was addition to a COPD register by the end of the trial. The secondary outcome was a clinical care score, derived from the sum of clinical assessments and relevant interventions. Associations between participant characteristics and the primary and secondary outcomes were assessed using multilevel regression. RESULTS: 857 patients identified with COPD by case finding and 764 by usual care were included. Only 21.2% of case-found patients had been added to a COPD register, compared with 92.7% of those diagnosed by usual care. The odds of being added were greater in smokers (adjusted OR 8.68, 95% CI 2.53 to 29.8), and in those with lower percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (adjusted OR 0.96 per percentage rise, 95% CI 0.95 to 0.98). Patients who had been added to a COPD register had a significantly higher clinical care score (mean difference 5.06, 95% CI 4.36 to 5.75). CONCLUSIONS: Only one in five case-found patients had been registered with COPD. Patients added to a COPD register received significantly higher levels of appropriate clinical care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14930255; Post-results.

Mortality in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Receiving Nonrecommended Doses of Direct Oral Anticoagulants.

BACKGROUND: The recommended doses for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to prevent stroke and systemic embolism (SE) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are described in specific regulatory authority approvals. OBJECTIVES: The impact of DOAC dosing, according to the recommended guidance on all-cause mortality, stroke/SE, and major bleeding, was assessed at 2-year follow-up in patients with newly diagnosed AF. METHODS: Of a total of 34,926 patients enrolled (2013 to 2016) in the prospective GARFIELD-AF (Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-AF), 10,426 patients received a DOAC. RESULTS: The majority of patients (72.9%) received recommended dosing, 23.2% were underdosed, and 3.8% were overdosed. Nonrecommended dosing (underdosage and overdosage combined) compared with recommended dosing was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04 to 1.48); HR: 1.25 (95% CI: 1.04 to 1.50) for underdosing, and HR: 1.19 (95% CI: 0.83 to 1.71) for overdosing. The excess deaths were cardiovascular including heart failure and myocardial infarction. The risks of stroke/SE and major bleeding were not significantly different irrespective of the level of dosing, although underdosed patients had a significantly lower risk of bleeding. A nonsignificant trend to higher risks of stroke/SE (HR: 1.51; 95% CI: 0.79 to 2.91) and major bleeding (HR: 1.29; 95% CI: 0.59 to 2.78) was observed in patients with overdosing. CONCLUSIONS: In GARFIELD-AF, most patients received the recommended DOAC doses according to country-specific guidelines. Prescription of nonrecommended doses was associated with an increased risk of death, mostly cardiovascular death, compared with patients on recommended doses, after adjusting for baseline factors. (Global Anticoagulant Registry in the Field-AF [GARFIELD-AF]; NCT01090362).

Supervised pulmonary hypertension exercise rehabilitation (SPHERe): study protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Supervised cardio-pulmonary rehabilitation may be safe and beneficial for people with pulmonary hypertension (PH) in groups 1 (pulmonary arterial hypertension) and 4 (chronic thromboembolic disease), particularly as a hospital in-patient. It has not been tested in the most common PH groups; 2 (left heart disease), 3 (lung disease), or 5 (other disorders). Further it has not been evaluated in the UK National Health Service (NHS) out-patient setting, or with long-term follow-up. The aim of this randomised controlled trial (RCT) is to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a supervised exercise rehabilitation intervention with psychosocial support compared to best practice usual care for people with PH in the community/outpatient setting. METHODS: This multi-centre, pragmatic, two-arm RCT with embedded process evaluation aims to recruit 352 clinically stable adults with PH (groups 1-5) and WHO functional class II-IV. Participants will be randomised to either the Supervised Pulmonary Hypertension Exercise Rehabilitation (SPHERe) intervention or control. The SPHERe intervention consists of 1) individual assessment and familiarisation sessions; 2) 8-week, twice-weekly, supervised out-patient exercise training; 3) psychosocial/motivational support and education; 4) guided home exercise plan. The control intervention consists of best practice usual care with a single one-to-one practitioner appointment, and general advice on physical activity. Outcomes will be measured at baseline, 4 months (post-intervention) and 12 months by researchers blinded to treatment allocation. The primary outcome is the incremental shuttle walk test at 4 months. Secondary outcomes include health-related quality of life (HRQoL), time to clinical worsening and health and social care use. A purposive sample of participants (n = 20 intervention and n = 20 control) and practitioners (n = 20) will be interviewed to explore experiences of the trial, outcomes and interventions. DISCUSSION: The SPHERe study is the first multi-centre clinical RCT to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of a supervised exercise rehabilitation intervention compared to usual care, delivered in the UK NHS, for people in all PH groups. Results will inform clinicians and commissioners as to whether or not supervised exercise rehabilitation is effective and should be routinely provided for people with PH. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN no. 10608766, prospectively registered on 18th March 2019.

Outcomes Associated With Oral Anticoagulants Plus Antiplatelets in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Atrial Fibrillation.

Importance: Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke should receive oral anticoagulants (OAC). However, approximately 1 in 8 patients in the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the Field (GARFIELD-AF) registry are treated with antiplatelet (AP) drugs in addition to OAC, with or without documented vascular disease or other indications for AP therapy. Objective: To investigate baseline characteristics and outcomes of patients who were prescribed OAC plus AP therapy vs OAC alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective cohort study of the GARFIELD-AF registry, an international, multicenter, observational study of adults aged 18 years and older with recently diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and at least 1 risk factor for stroke enrolled between March 2010 and August 2016. Data were extracted for analysis in October 2017 and analyzed from April 2018 to June 2019. Exposure: Participants received either OAC plus AP or OAC alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinical outcomes were measured over 3 and 12 months. Outcomes were adjusted for 40 covariates, including baseline conditions and medications. Results: A total of 24 436 patients (13 438 [55.0%] male; median [interquartile range] age, 71 [64-78] years) were analyzed. Among eligible patients, those receiving OAC plus AP therapy had a greater prevalence of cardiovascular indications for AP, including acute coronary syndromes (22.0% vs 4.3%), coronary artery disease (39.1% vs 9.8%), and carotid occlusive disease (4.8% vs 2.0%). Over 1 year, patients treated with OAC plus AP had significantly higher incidence rates of stroke (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.49; 95% CI, 1.01-2.20) and any bleeding event (aHR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.17-1.70) than those treated with OAC alone. These patients did not show evidence of reduced all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.98-1.51). Risk of acute coronary syndrome was not reduced in patients taking OAC plus AP compared with OAC alone (aHR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.70-1.94). Patients treated with OAC plus AP also had higher rates of all clinical outcomes than those treated with OAC alone over the short term (3 months). Conclusions and Relevance: This study challenges the practice of coprescribing OAC plus AP unless there is a clear indication for adding AP to OAC therapy in newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation.

Prior stroke and transient ischemic attack as risk factors for subsequent stroke in atrial fibrillation patients: A report from the GARFIELD-AF registry.

BACKGROUND: It is not always possible to verify whether a patient complaining of symptoms consistent with transient ischemic attack has had an actual cerebrovascular event. RESEARCH QUESTION: To characterize the risk of cardiovascular events associated with a history of stroke/transient ischemic attack in patients with atrial fibrillation. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This study investigated the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with a history of stroke/transient ischemic attack among 52,014 patients enrolled prospectively in GARFIELD-AF registry. The diagnosis of stroke or transient ischemic attack was not protocol defined but based on physicians' assessment. Patients' one-year risk of death, stroke/systemic embolism, and major bleeding was assessed by multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: At enrollment, 5617 (10.9%) patients were reported to have a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack. Patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack were older and had a greater burden of diabetes, moderate-to-severe kidney disease, and atherothrombosis and higher median CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores than those without history of stroke or transient ischemic attack. After adjustment, prior stroke/transient ischemic attack was associated with significantly higher risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio (HR), 1.26; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.12-1.42), cardiovascular death (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48), non-cardiovascular death (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.15-1.68), and stroke/systemic embolism (HR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.80-2.63) than patients without history of stroke/transient ischemic attack. In patients with a prior stroke alone higher risk was observed for all-cause mortality (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.11-1.50), non-cardiovascular death (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.10-1.77), and stroke/systemic embolism (HR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.83-2.86). No significantly elevated risk of adverse events was seen for patients with history of transient ischemic attack alone. INTERPRETATION: A history of prior stroke or transient ischemic attack is a strong independent risk factor for mortality and stroke/systemic embolism. This excess risk is mainly attributed to a history of stroke (with or without transient ischemic attack), whereas history of transient ischemic attack is a weaker predictor. Clinical trial registration: NCT01090362.

New artificial intelligence prediction model using serial prothrombin time international normalized ratio measurements in atrial fibrillation patients on vitamin K antagonists: GARFIELD-AF.

AIMS: Most clinical risk stratification models are based on measurement at a single time-point rather than serial measurements. Artificial intelligence (AI) is able to predict one-dimensional outcomes from multi-dimensional datasets. Using data from Global Anticoagulant Registry in the Field (GARFIELD)-AF registry, a new AI model was developed for predicting clinical outcomes in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients up to 1 year based on sequential measures of prothrombin time international normalized ratio (PT-INR) within 30 days of enrolment. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with newly diagnosed AF who were treated with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and had at least three measurements of PT-INR taken over the first 30 days after prescription were analysed. The AI model was constructed with multilayer neural network including long short-term memory and one-dimensional convolution layers. The neural network was trained using PT-INR measurements within days 0-30 after starting treatment and clinical outcomes over days 31-365 in a derivation cohort (cohorts 1-3; n = 3185). Accuracy of the AI model at predicting major bleed, stroke/systemic embolism (SE), and death was assessed in a validation cohort (cohorts 4-5; n = 1523). The model's c-statistic for predicting major bleed, stroke/SE, and all-cause death was 0.75, 0.70, and 0.61, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Using serial PT-INR values collected within 1 month after starting VKA, the new AI model performed better than time in therapeutic range at predicting clinical outcomes occurring up to 12 months thereafter. Serial PT-INR values contain important information that can be analysed by computer to help predict adverse clinical outcomes.

A randomised controlled trial of extended anticoagulation treatment versus standard treatment for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) and post-thrombotic syndrome in patients being treated for a first episode of unprovoked VTE (the ExACT study).

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is prevalent and impactful, with a risk of death, morbidity and recurrence. Post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) is a common consequence and associated with impaired quality of life (QoL). The ExACT study was a non-blinded, prospective, multicentred randomised controlled trial comparing extended versus limited duration anticoagulation following a first unprovoked VTE (proximal deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism). Adults were eligible if they had completed ≥3 months anticoagulation (remaining anticoagulated). The primary outcome was time to first recurrent VTE from randomisation. The secondary outcomes included PTS severity, bleeding, QoL and D-dimers. Two-hundred and eighty-one patients were recruited, randomised and followed up for 24 months (mean age 63, male:female 2:1). There was a significant reduction in recurrent VTE for patients receiving extended anticoagulation [2·75 vs. 13·54 events/100 patient years, adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0·20 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0·09 to 0·46, P < 0·001)] with a non-significant increase in major bleeding [3·54 vs. 1·18 events/100 patient years, aHR 2·99 (95% CI: 0·81-11·05, P = 0·10)]. Outcomes of PTS and QoL were no different between groups. D-dimer results (on anticoagulation) did not predict VTE recurrence. In conclusion, extended anticoagulation reduced VTE recurrence but did not reduce PTS or improve QoL and was associated with a non-significant increase in bleeding. Results also suggest very limited clinical utility of D-dimer testing on anticoagulated patients.

External Validation Of The Updated ADO Score In COPD Patients From The Birmingham COPD Cohort.

Background: Reviews suggest that the ADO score is the most discriminatory prognostic score for predicting mortality among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, but a full evaluation and external validation within primary care settings is critical before implementation. Objectives: To validate the ADO score in prevalent and screen-detected primary care COPD cases at 3 years and at shorter time periods. Patients and methods: One thousand eight hundred and ninety-two COPD cases were recruited between 2012 and 2014 from 71 United Kingdom general practices as part of the Birmingham COPD Cohort study. Cases were either on the practice COPD register or screen-detected. We validated the ADO score for predicting 3-year mortality with 1-year and 2-year mortality as secondary endpoints using discrimination (area-under-the-curve (AUC)) and calibration plots. Results: One hundred and fifty-four deaths occurred within 3 years. The ADO score was discriminatory for predicting 3-year mortality (AUC= 0.74; 95% CI: 0.69-0.79). Similar performance was found for 1- (AUC= 0.73; 0.66-0.80) and 2-year mortality (0.72; 0.67-0.76). The ADO score showed reasonable calibration for predicting 3-year mortality (calibration slope 0.95; 0.70-1.19) but over-predicted in cases with higher predicted risks of mortality at 1 (0.79; 0.45-1.13) and 2-year (0.79; 0.57-1.01) mortality. Discussion: The ADO score showed promising discrimination in predicting 3-year mortality in a primary care population including screen-detected cases. It may need to be recalibrated if it is used to provide risk predictions for 1- or 2-year mortality since, in these time-periods, over-prediction was evident, especially in cases with higher predicted mortality risks.

Estimated stroke risk, yield, and number needed to screen for atrial fibrillation detected through single time screening: a multicountry patient-level meta-analysis of 141,220 screened individuals.

BACKGROUND: The precise age distribution and calculated stroke risk of screen-detected atrial fibrillation (AF) is not known. Therefore, it is not possible to determine the number needed to screen (NNS) to identify one treatable new AF case (NNS-Rx) (i.e., Class-1 oral anticoagulation [OAC] treatment recommendation) in each age stratum. If the NNS-Rx is known for each age stratum, precise cost-effectiveness and sensitivity simulations can be performed based on the age distribution of the population/region to be screened. Such calculations are required by national authorities and organisations responsible for health system budgets to determine the best age cutoffs for screening programs and decide whether programs of screening should be funded. Therefore, we aimed to determine the exact yield and calculated stroke-risk profile of screen-detected AF and NNS-Rx in 5-year age strata. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A systematic review of Medline, Pubmed, and Embase was performed (January 2007 to February 2018), and AF-SCREEN international collaboration members were contacted to identify additional studies. Twenty-four eligible studies were identified that performed a single time point screen for AF in a general ambulant population, including people ≥65 years. Authors from eligible studies were invited to collaborate and share patient-level data. Statistical analysis was performed using random effects logistic regression for AF detection rate, and Poisson regression modelling for CHA2DS2-VASc scores. Nineteen studies (14 countries from a mix of low- to middle- and high-income countries) collaborated, with 141,220 participants screened and 1,539 new AF cases. Pooled yield of screening was greater in males across all age strata. The age/sex-adjusted detection rate for screen-detected AF in ≥65-year-olds was 1.44% (95% CI, 1.13%-1.82%) and 0.41% (95% CI, 0.31%-0.53%) for <65-year-olds. New AF detection rate increased progressively with age from 0.34% (<60 years) to 2.73% (≥85 years). Neither the choice of screening methodology or device, the geographical region, nor the screening setting influenced the detection rate of AF. Mean CHA2DS2-VASc scores (n = 1,369) increased with age from 1.1 (<60 years) to 3.9 (≥85 years); 72% of ≥65 years had ≥1 additional stroke risk factor other than age/sex. All new AF ≥75 years and 66% between 65 and 74 years had a Class-1 OAC recommendation. The NNS-Rx is 83 for ≥65 years, 926 for 60-64 years; and 1,089 for <60 years. The main limitation of this study is there are insufficient data on sociodemographic variables of the populations and possible ascertainment biases to explain the variance in the samples. CONCLUSIONS: People with screen-detected AF are at elevated calculated stroke risk: above age 65, the majority have a Class-1 OAC recommendation for stroke prevention, and >70% have ≥1 additional stroke risk factor other than age/sex. Our data, based on the largest number of screen-detected AF collected to date, show the precise relationship between yield and estimated stroke risk profile with age, and strong dependence for NNS-RX on the age distribution of the population to be screened: essential information for precise cost-effectiveness calculations.