Collaborative meta-analysis of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy for prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in high risk patients

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of antiplatelet therapy among patients at high risk of occlusive vascular events. DESIGN: Collaborative meta-analyses (systematic overviews). INCLUSION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of an antiplatelet regimen versus control or of one antiplatelet regimen versus another in high risk patients (with acute or previous vascular disease or some other predisposing condition) from which results were available before September 1997. Trials had to use a method of randomisation that precluded prior knowledge of the next treatment to be allocated and comparisons had to be unconfounded-that is, have study groups that differed only in terms of antiplatelet regimen. STUDIES REVIEWED: 287 studies involving 135 000 patients in comparisons of antiplatelet therapy versus control and 77 000 in comparisons of different antiplatelet regimens. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: "Serious vascular event": non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or vascular death. RESULTS: Overall, among these high risk patients, allocation to antiplatelet therapy reduced the combined outcome of any serious vascular event by about one quarter; non-fatal myocardial infarction was reduced by one third, non-fatal stroke by one quarter, and vascular mortality by one sixth (with no apparent adverse effect on other deaths). Absolute reductions in the risk of having a serious vascular event were 36 (SE 5) per 1000 treated for two years among patients with previous myocardial infarction; 38 (5) per 1000 patients treated for one month among patients with acute myocardial infarction; 36 (6) per 1000 treated for two years among those with previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack; 9 (3) per 1000 treated for three weeks among those with acute stroke; and 22 (3) per 1000 treated for two years among other high risk patients (with separately significant results for those with stable angina (P=0.0005), peripheral arterial disease (P=0.004), and atrial fibrillation (P=0.01)). In each of these high risk categories, the absolute benefits substantially outweighed the absolute risks of major extracranial bleeding. Aspirin was the most widely studied antiplatelet drug, with doses of 75-150 mg daily at least as effective as higher daily doses. The effects of doses lower than 75 mg daily were less certain. Clopidogrel reduced serious vascular events by 10% (4%) compared with aspirin, which was similar to the 12% (7%) reduction observed with its analogue ticlopidine. Addition of dipyridamole to aspirin produced no significant further reduction in vascular events compared with aspirin alone. Among patients at high risk of immediate coronary occlusion, short term addition of an intravenous glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonist to aspirin prevented a further 20 (4) vascular events per 1000 (P<0.0001) but caused 23 major (but rarely fatal) extracranial bleeds per 1000. CONCLUSIONS: Aspirin (or another oral antiplatelet drug) is protective in most types of patient at increased risk of occlusive vascular events, including those with an acute myocardial infarction or ischaemic stroke, unstable or stable angina, previous myocardial infarction, stroke or cerebral ischaemia, peripheral arterial disease, or atrial fibrillation. Low dose aspirin (75-150 mg daily) is an effective antiplatelet regimen for long term use, but in acute settings an initial loading dose of at least 150 mg aspirin may be required. Adding a second antiplatelet drug to aspirin may produce additional benefits in some clinical circumstances, but more research into this strategy is needed

An integrated general practice and pharmacy-based intervention to promote the use of appropriate preventive medications among individuals at high cardiovascular disease risk: protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial

Background: Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are responsible for significant morbidity, premature mortality, and economic burden. Despite established evidence that supports the use of preventive medications among patients at high CVD risk, treatment gaps remain. Building on prior evidence and a theoretical framework, a complex intervention has been designed to address these gaps among high-risk, under-treated patients in the Australian primary care setting. This intervention comprises a general practice quality improvement tool incorporating clinical decision support and audit/feedback capabilities; availability of a range of CVD polypills (fixed-dose combinations of two blood pressure lowering agents, a statin ± aspirin) for prescription when appropriate; and access to a pharmacy-based program to support long-term medication adherence and lifestyle modification. Methods: Following a systematic development process, the intervention will be evaluated in a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial including 70 general practices for a median period of 18 months. The 35 general practices in the intervention group will work with a nominated partner pharmacy, whereas those in the control group will provide usual care without access to the intervention tools. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients at high CVD risk who were inadequately treated at baseline who achieve target blood pressure (BP) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels at the study end. The outcomes will be analyzed using data from electronic medical records, utilizing a validated extraction tool. Detailed process and economic evaluations will also be performed. Discussion: The study intends to establish evidence about an intervention that combines technological innovation with team collaboration between patients, pharmacists, and general practitioners (GPs) for CVD prevention. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN1261600023342

Methods of a large prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded end-point study comparing morning versus evening dosing in hypertensive patients:the Treatment In Morning versus Evening (TIME) study

Introduction: Nocturnal blood pressure (BP) appears to be a better predictor of cardiovascular outcome than daytime BP. The BP lowering effects of most antihypertensive therapies are often greater in the first 12 h compared to the next 12 h. The Treatment In Morning versus Evening (TIME) study aims to establish whether evening dosing is more cardioprotective than morning dosing. Methods and analysis: The TIME study uses the prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded end-point (PROBE) design. TIME recruits participants by advertising in the community, from primary and secondary care, and from databases of consented patients in the UK. Participants must be aged over 18 years, prescribed at least one antihypertensive drug taken once a day, and have a valid email address. After the participants have self-enrolled and consented on the secure TIME website (http://www.timestudy.co.uk) they are randomised to take their antihypertensive medication in the morning or the evening. Participant follow-ups are conducted after 1 month and then every 3 months by automated email. The trial is expected to run for 5 years, randomising 10 269 participants, with average participant follow-up being 4 years. The primary end point is hospitalisation for the composite end point of non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), non-fatal stroke (cerebrovascular accident; CVA) or any vascular death determined by record-linkage. Secondary end points are: each component of the primary end point, hospitalisation for non-fatal stroke, hospitalisation for non-fatal MI, cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, hospitalisation or death from congestive heart failure. The primary outcome will be a comparison of time to first event comparing morning versus evening dosing using an intention-to-treat analysis. The sample size is calculated for a two-sided test to detect 20% superiority at 80% power. Ethics and dissemination: TIME has ethical approval in the UK, and results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Trial registration number: UKCRN17071; Pre-results

Global collaborative networks on meta-analyses of randomized trials published in high impact factor medical journals: a social network analysis

BackgroundResearch collaboration contributes to the advancement of knowledge by exploiting the results of scientific efforts more efficiently, but the global patterns of collaboration on meta-analysis are unknown. The purpose of this research was to describe and characterize the global collaborative patterns in meta-analyses of randomized trials published in high impact factor medical journals over the past three decades.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional, social network analysis. We searched PubMed for relevant meta-analyses of randomized trials published up to December 2012. We selected meta-analyses (including at least randomized trials as primary evidence source) published in the top seven high impact factor general medical journals (according to Journal Citation Reports 2011): The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, the BMJ, JAMA, Annals of Internal Medicine, Archives of Internal Medicine (now renamed JAMA Internal Medicine), and PLoS Medicine. Opinion articles, conceptual papers, narrative reviews, reviews without meta-analysis, reviews of reviews, and other study designs were excluded.ResultsOverall, we included 736 meta-analyses, in which 3,178 authors, 891 institutions, and 51 countries participated. The BMJ was the journal that published the greatest number of articles (39%), followed by The Lancet (18%), JAMA (15%) and the Archives of Internal Medicine (15%). The USA, the UK, and Canada headed the absolute global productivity ranking in number of papers. The 64 authors and the 39 institutions with the highest publication rates were identified. We also found 82 clusters of authors (one group with 55 members and one group with 54 members) and 19 clusters of institutions (one major group with 76 members). The most prolific authors were mainly affiliated with the University of Oxford (UK), McMaster University (Canada), and the University of Bern (Switzerland).ConclusionsOur analysis identified networks of authors, institutions and countries publishing meta-analyses of randomized trials in high impact medical journals. This valuable information may be used to strengthen scientific capacity for collaboration and to help to promote a global agenda for future research of excellence

Medication Persistence Rates and Factors Associated with Persistence in Patients Following Stroke: A Cohort Study

Abstract Background Medication nonadherence can be as high as 50% and results in suboptimal patient outcomes. Stroke patients in particular can benefit from pharmacotherapy for thrombosis, hypertension, and dyslipidemia but are at high risk for medication nonpersistence. Methods Patients who were admitted to the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre in Halifax, Nova Scotia, with stroke between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2002 were analyzed. Data collected were pre-stroke function, stroke subtype, stroke severity, patient outcomes, and medication use at discharge, and six and 12 months post discharge. Medication persistence at six and 12 months and the factors associated with nonpersistence at six months were examined using multivariable stepwise logistic regression. Results At discharge, 420 patients (mean age 68.2 years, 55.7% male) were prescribed an average of 6.4 medications and mean prescription drug cost was $167 monthly. Antihypertensive (91%) and antithrombotic (96%) drug use at discharge were frequent, antilipidemic (73%) and antihyperglycemic (25%) drug use were less common. Self-reported persistence at six and 12 months after stroke was high (> 90%) for all categories. In the multivariable model of medication nonpersistence at six months, people aged 65 to 79 years were less likely to be nonpersistent with antihypertensive medications than people aged 80 years or more (Odds ratio (OR) 0.11, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.03–0.39). Monthly drug costs of Conclusion Patients reported high medication persistence rates six and 12 months after stroke. Identification of factors associated with nonpersistence (such as older age and prior disability) will help predict which patients are at higher risk for discontinuing their medications.</p

Assessment of platelet function in patients with stroke using multiple electrode platelet aggregometry: a prospective observational study

Background There is a link between high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HPR) and adverse vascular events in stroke. This study aimed to compare multiple electrode platelet aggregometry (MEA), in healthy subjects and ischaemic stroke patients, and between patients naive to antiplatelet drugs (AP) and those on regular low dose AP. We also aimed to determine prevalence of HPR at baseline and at 3–5 days after loading doses of aspirin. Methods Patients with first ever ischaemic stroke were age and sex-matched to a healthy control group. Three venous blood samples were collected: on admission before any treatment given (baseline); at 24 h and 3–5 days after standard treatment. MEA was determined using a Mutliplate® analyser and agonists tested were arachidonic acid (ASPI), adenosine diphosphate (ADP) and collagen (COL). Results Seventy patients (mean age 73 years [SD 13]; 42 men, 28 women) were age and sex-matched to 72 healthy subjects. Thirty-three patients were on antiplatelet drugs (AP) prior to stroke onset and 37 were AP-naive. MEA results for all agonists were significantly increased in AP-naive patients compared to healthy subjects: ADP 98 ± 31 vs 81 ± 24, p < 0.005; ASPI 117 ± 31 vs 98 ± 27, p < 0.005; COL 100 ± 25 vs 82 ± 20, p < 0.005. For patients on long term AP, 33% (10/30) of patients were considered aspirin-resistant. At 3–5 days following loading doses of aspirin, only 11.1% were aspirin resistant based on an ASPI cut-off value of 40 AU*min. Conclusions Many patients receiving low dose aspirin met the criteria of aspirin resistance but this was much lower at 3–5 days following loading doses of aspirin. Future studies are needed to establish the causes of HPR and potential benefits of individualizing AP treatment based on platelet function testing

A Polypill for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A feasibility study of the World Health Organization

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The feasibility of conducting a large-scale Polypill clinical trial in developing countries remains unclear. More information is needed regarding the efficacy in reducing the risk factors of cardiovascular disease (CVD), side effects, improvement in adherence and physician/patient "acceptability" of the Polypill.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted an open-label, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial involving three sites in Sri Lanka that enrolled a total of 216 patients without established CVD. The trial compared a Polypill (75 mg aspirin, 20 mg simvastatin, 10 mg lisinopril and 12.5 mg hydrochlorothiazide) to Standard Practice. After randomization, patients were followed monthly for three months. Pre-specified primary outcomes included reduction in systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol and estimated 10-year CVD risk. We also evaluated the recruitment process and acceptability of the Polypill by both physicians and patients.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Patients were recruited in a six-month period as planned. Two hundred three patients (94.0%) completed the treatment program and returned for their three-month follow-up visits. No safety concerns were reported. These findings suggest a high rate of patient acceptability, a finding that is bolstered by the majority of patients completing the trial (90%) indicating that they would take the Polypill "for life" if proven to be effective in reducing CVD risk. Approximately 86% of the physicians surveyed agreed with and supported use of the Polypill for primary prevention and 93% for secondary prevention of CVD. Both the Polypill and Standard Practice resulted in marked reductions in systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol and 10-year risk of CVD. However, the differences between the treatment groups were not statistically significant.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We successfully completed a Polypill feasibility trial in Sri Lanka. We were able to document high acceptability of the Polypill to patients and physicians. We were unable to estimate the risk factor reductions on the Polypill because the control group received similar treatment with individual drugs. The Polypill was however simpler and achieved comparable risk factor reductions, highlighting its potential usefulness in the prevention of CVD.</p> <p>Trial registration number</p> <p>ISRCTN: <a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/NCT00567307">NCT00567307</a></p

Duration of hospital participation in a nationwide stroke registry is associated with improved quality of care

BACKGROUND: There are several proven therapies for patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), including prophylaxis of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and initiation of antithrombotic medications within 48 h and at discharge. Stroke registries have been promoted as a means of increasing use of such interventions, which are currently underutilized. METHODS: From 1999 through 2003, 86 U.S. hospitals participated in Ethos, a voluntary web-based acute stroke treatment registry. Detailed data were collected on all patients admitted with a diagnosis of TIA or ischemic stroke. Rates of optimal treatment (defined as either receipt or a valid contraindication) were examined within each hospital as a function of its length of time in registry. Generalized estimating equations were used to adjust for patient and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 16,301 patients were discharged with a diagnosis of stroke or TIA from 50 hospitals that participated for more than 1 year. Rates of optimal treatment during the first 3 months of participation were as follows: 92.5% for antithrombotic medication within 48 h, 84.6% for antithrombotic medications at discharge, and 77.1% for DVT prophylaxis. Rates for all treatments improved with duration of participation in the registry (p < 0.05), with the most dramatic improvements in the first year. CONCLUSION: In a large cohort of patients with stroke or TIA, three targeted quality-improvement measures improved among hospitals participating in a disease-specific registry. Although the changes could be attributed to interventions other than the registry, these findings demonstrate the potential for hospital-level interventions to improve care for patients with stroke and TIA