| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Capodanno, Davide, et al.
(författare)
-
Defining Strategies of Modulation of Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease : A Consensus Document from the Academic Research Consortium
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Circulation. - : Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). - 0009-7322 .- 1524-4539. ; 147:25, s. 1933-1944
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Antiplatelet therapy is the mainstay of pharmacologic treatment to prevent thrombotic or ischemic events in patients with coronary artery disease treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and those treated medically for an acute coronary syndrome. The use of antiplatelet therapy comes at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding complications. Defining the optimal intensity of platelet inhibition according to the clinical presentation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and individual patient factors is a clinical challenge. Modulation of antiplatelet therapy is a medical action that is frequently performed to balance the risk of thrombotic or ischemic events and the risk of bleeding. This aim may be achieved by reducing (ie, de-escalation) or increasing (ie, escalation) the intensity of platelet inhibition by changing the type, dose, or number of antiplatelet drugs. Because de-escalation or escalation can be achieved in different ways, with a number of emerging approaches, confusion arises with terminologies that are often used interchangeably. To address this issue, this Academic Research Consortium collaboration provides an overview and definitions of different strategies of antiplatelet therapy modulation for patients with coronary artery disease, including but not limited to those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and consensus statements on standardized definitions.
|
|
| 6. |
- Udelson, James E, et al.
(författare)
-
Deferred Testing in Stable Outpatients With Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of the PRECISE Randomized Clinical Trial.
- 2023
-
Ingår i: JAMA cardiology. - 2380-6591.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Guidelines recommend deferral of testing for symptomatic people with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) and low pretest probability. To our knowledge, no randomized trial has prospectively evaluated such a strategy.To assess process of care and health outcomes in people identified as minimal risk for CAD when testing is deferred.This randomized, pragmatic effectiveness trial included prespecified subgroup analysis of the PRECISE trial at 65 North American and European sites. Participants identified as minimal risk by the validated PROMISE minimal risk score (PMRS) were included.Randomization to a precision strategy using the PMRS to assign those with minimal risk to deferred testing and others to coronary computed tomography angiography with selective computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve, or to usual testing (stress testing or catheterization with PMRS masked). Randomization was stratified by PMRS risk.Composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), or catheterization without obstructive CAD through 12 months.Among 2103 participants, 422 were identified as minimal risk (20%) and randomized to deferred testing (n = 214) or usual testing (n = 208). Mean age (SD) was 46 (8.6) years; 304 were women (72%). During follow-up, 138 of those randomized to deferred testing never had testing (64%), whereas 76 had a downstream test (36%) (at median [IQR] 48 [15-78] days) for worsening (30%), uncontrolled (10%), or new symptoms (6%), or changing clinician preference (19%) or participant preference (10%). Results were normal for 96% of these tests. The primary end point occurred in 2 deferred testing (0.9%) and 13 usual testing participants (6.3%) (hazard ratio, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03-0.66; P = .01). No death or MI was observed in the deferred testing participants, while 1 noncardiovascular death and 1 MI occurred in the usual testing group. Two participants (0.9%) had catheterizations without obstructive CAD in the deferred testing group and 12 (5.8%) with usual testing (P = .02). At baseline, 70% of participants had frequent angina and there was similar reduction of frequent angina to less than 20% at 12 months in both groups.In symptomatic participants with suspected CAD, identification of minimal risk by the PMRS guided a strategy of initially deferred testing. The strategy was safe with no observed adverse outcome events, fewer catheterizations without obstructive CAD, and similar symptom relief compared with usual testing.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03702244.
|
|
| 7. |
- Douglas, Pamela S, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparison of an Initial Risk-Based Testing Strategy vs Usual Testing in Stable Symptomatic Patients With Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: The PRECISE Randomized Clinical Trial.
- 2023
-
Ingår i: JAMA cardiology. - 2380-6591.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Trials showing equivalent or better outcomes with initial evaluation using coronary computed tomography angiography (cCTA) compared with stress testing in patients with stable chest pain have informed guidelines but raise questions about overtesting and excess catheterization.To test a modified initial cCTA strategy designed to improve clinical efficiency vs usual testing (UT).This was a pragmatic randomized clinical trial enrolling participants from December 3, 2018, to May 18, 2021, with a median of 11.8 months of follow-up. Patients from 65 North American and European sites with stable symptoms of suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) and no prior testing were randomly assigned 1:1 to precision strategy (PS) or UT.PS incorporated the Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for the Evaluation of Chest Pain (PROMISE) minimal risk score to quantitatively select minimal-risk participants for deferred testing, assigning all others to cCTA with selective CT-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR-CT). UT included site-selected stress testing or catheterization. Site clinicians determined subsequent care.Outcomes were clinical efficiency (invasive catheterization without obstructive CAD) and safety (death or nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI]) combined into a composite primary end point. Secondary end points included safety components of the primary outcome and medication use.A total of 2103 participants (mean [SD] age, 58.4 [11.5] years; 1056 male [50.2%]) were included in the study, and 422 [20.1%] were classified as minimal risk. The primary end point occurred in 44 of 1057 participants (4.2%) in the PS group and in 118 of 1046 participants (11.3%) in the UT group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.35; 95% CI, 0.25-0.50). Clinical efficiency was higher with PS, with lower rates of catheterization without obstructive disease (27 [2.6%]) vs UT participants (107 [10.2%]; HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.16-0.36). The safety composite of death/MI was similar (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.73-3.15). Death occurred in 5 individuals (0.5%) in the PS group vs 7 (0.7%) in the UT group (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.23-2.23), and nonfatal MI occurred in 13 individuals (1.2%) in the PS group vs 5 (0.5%) in the UT group (HR, 2.65; 95% CI, 0.96-7.36). Use of lipid-lowering (450 of 900 [50.0%] vs 365 of 873 [41.8%]) and antiplatelet (321 of 900 [35.7%] vs 237 of 873 [27.1%]) medications at 1 year was higher in the PS group compared with the UT group (both P < .001).An initial diagnostic approach to stable chest pain starting with quantitative risk stratification and deferred testing for minimal-risk patients and cCTA with selective FFR-CT in all others increased clinical efficiency relative to UT at 1 year. Additional randomized clinical trials are needed to verify these findings, including safety.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03702244.
|
|
| 8. |
- Micah, Angela E., et al.
(författare)
-
Tracking development assistance for health and for COVID-19 : a review of development assistance, government, out-of-pocket, and other private spending on health for 204 countries and territories, 1990-2050
- 2021
-
Ingår i: The Lancet. - : Elsevier. - 0140-6736 .- 1474-547X. ; 398:10308, s. 1317-1343
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background The rapid spread of COVID-19 renewed the focus on how health systems across the globe are financed, especially during public health emergencies. Development assistance is an important source of health financing in many low-income countries, yet little is known about how much of this funding was disbursed for COVID-19. We aimed to put development assistance for health for COVID-19 in the context of broader trends in global health financing, and to estimate total health spending from 1995 to 2050 and development assistance for COVID-19 in 2020. Methods We estimated domestic health spending and development assistance for health to generate total health-sector spending estimates for 204 countries and territories. We leveraged data from the WHO Global Health Expenditure Database to produce estimates of domestic health spending. To generate estimates for development assistance for health, we relied on project-level disbursement data from the major international development agencies' online databases and annual financial statements and reports for information on income sources. To adjust our estimates for 2020 to include disbursements related to COVID-19, we extracted project data on commitments and disbursements from a broader set of databases (because not all of the data sources used to estimate the historical series extend to 2020), including the UN Office of Humanitarian Assistance Financial Tracking Service and the International Aid Transparency Initiative. We reported all the historic and future spending estimates in inflation-adjusted 2020 US$, 2020 US$ per capita, purchasing-power parity-adjusted US$ per capita, and as a proportion of gross domestic product. We used various models to generate future health spending to 2050. Findings In 2019, health spending globally reached $8. 8 trillion (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 8.7-8.8) or $1132 (1119-1143) per person. Spending on health varied within and across income groups and geographical regions. Of this total, $40.4 billion (0.5%, 95% UI 0.5-0.5) was development assistance for health provided to low-income and middle-income countries, which made up 24.6% (UI 24.0-25.1) of total spending in low-income countries. We estimate that $54.8 billion in development assistance for health was disbursed in 2020. Of this, $13.7 billion was targeted toward the COVID-19 health response. $12.3 billion was newly committed and $1.4 billion was repurposed from existing health projects. $3.1 billion (22.4%) of the funds focused on country-level coordination and $2.4 billion (17.9%) was for supply chain and logistics. Only $714.4 million (7.7%) of COVID-19 development assistance for health went to Latin America, despite this region reporting 34.3% of total recorded COVID-19 deaths in low-income or middle-income countries in 2020. Spending on health is expected to rise to $1519 (1448-1591) per person in 2050, although spending across countries is expected to remain varied. Interpretation Global health spending is expected to continue to grow, but remain unequally distributed between countries. We estimate that development organisations substantially increased the amount of development assistance for health provided in 2020. Continued efforts are needed to raise sufficient resources to mitigate the pandemic for the most vulnerable, and to help curtail the pandemic for all. Copyright (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.
|
|
| 9. |
- Urban, Philip, et al.
(författare)
-
Defining High Bleeding Risk in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention : A Consensus Document From the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Circulation. - : LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS. - 0009-7322 .- 1524-4539. ; 140:3, s. 240-261
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention are of major importance, but a lack of standardization in defining this population limits trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organizations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from the United States, Asia, and Europe focusing on percutaneous coronary intervention-related bleeding. Two meetings of the 31-member consortium were held in Washington, DC, in April 2018 and in Paris, France, in October 2018. These meetings were organized by the Cardiovascular European Research Center on behalf of the ARC-HBR group and included representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, as well as observers from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. A consensus definition of patients at high bleeding risk was developed that was based on review of the available evidence. The definition is intended to provide consistency in defining this population for clinical trials and to complement clinical decision-making and regulatory review. The proposed ARC-HBR consensus document represents the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of high bleeding risk in clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of devices and drug regimens for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
|
|
| 10. |
- Urban, Philip, et al.
(författare)
-
Defining high bleeding risk in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention : a consensus document from the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk
- 2019
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 40:31, s. 2632-2653
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention are of major importance, but a lack of standardization in defining this population limits trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organizations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from the United States, Asia, and Europe focusing on percutaneous coronary intervention-related bleeding. Two meetings of the 31-member consortium were held in Washington, DC, in April 2018 and in Paris, France, in October 2018. These meetings were organized by the Cardiovascular European Research Center on behalf of the ARC-HBR group and included representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, as well as observers from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. A consensus definition of patients at high bleeding risk was developed that was based on review of the available evidence. The definition is intended to provide consistency in defining this population for clinical trials and to complement clinical decision-making and regulatory review. The proposed ARC-HBR consensus document represents the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of high bleeding risk in clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of devices and drug regimens for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
|
|
