| 1. |
- Aktaa, Suleman, et al.
(författare)
-
European Society of Cardiology Quality Indicators for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention: developed by the Working Group for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Quality Indicators in collaboration with the European Association for Preventive Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology
- 2022
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. - : OXFORD UNIV PRESS. - 2047-4873 .- 2047-4881. ; 23:7, s. 1060-1071
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims To develop a set of quality indicators (QIs) for the evaluation of the care and outcomes for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevention. Methods and results The Quality Indicator Committee of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) formed the Working Group for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Quality Indicators in collaboration with Task Force members of the 2021 ESC Guidelines on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice and the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC). We followed the ESC methodology for QI development, which involved (i) the identification of the key domains of care for ASCVD prevention by constructing a conceptual framework of care, (ii) the development of candidate QIs by conducting a systematic review of the literature, (iii) the selection of the final set of QIs using a modified Delphi method, and (iv) the evaluation of the feasibility of the developed QIs. In total, 17 main and 14 secondary QIs were selected across six domains of care for ASCVD prevention: (i) structural framework, (ii) risk assessment, (iii) care for people at risk for ASCVD, (iv) care for patients with established ASCVD, (v) patient education and experience, and (vi) outcomes. Conclusion We present the 2021 ESC QIs for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention, which have been co-constructed with EAPC using the ESC methodology for QI development. These indicators are supported by evidence from the literature, underpinned by expert consensus and aligned with the 2021 ESC Guidelines on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice to offer a mechanism for the evaluation of ASCVD prevention care and outcomes.
|
|
| 2. |
- Carnicelli, Anthony P., et al.
(författare)
-
Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation : Patient-Level Network Meta-Analyses of Randomized Clinical Trials With Interaction Testing by Age and Sex
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Circulation. - : Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). - 0009-7322 .- 1524-4539. ; 145:4, s. 242-255
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preferred over warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Meta-analyses using individual patient data offer substantial advantages over study-level data.Methods: We used individual patient data from the COMBINE AF (A Collaboration Between Multiple Institutions to Better Investigate Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Use in Atrial Fibrillation) database, which includes all patients randomized in the 4 pivotal trials of DOACs versus warfarin in atrial fibrillation (RE-LY [Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy], ROCKET AF [Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation], ARISTOTLE [Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation], and ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 [Effective Anticoagulation With Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48]), to perform network meta-analyses using a stratified Cox model with random effects comparing standard-dose DOAC, lower-dose DOAC, and warfarin. Hazard ratios (HRs [95% CIs]) were calculated for efficacy and safety outcomes. Covariate-by-treatment interaction was estimated for categorical covariates and for age as a continuous covariate, stratified by sex.Results: A total of 71 683 patients were included (29 362 on standard-dose DOAC, 13 049 on lower-dose DOAC, and 29 272 on warfarin). Compared with warfarin, standard-dose DOACs were associated with a significantly lower hazard of stroke or systemic embolism (883/29 312 [3.01%] versus 1080/29 229 [3.69%]; HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.74-0.89]), death (2276/29 312 [7.76%] versus 2460/29 229 [8.42%]; HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.87-0.97]), and intracranial bleeding (184/29 270 [0.63%] versus 409/29 187 [1.40%]; HR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.37-0.56]), but no statistically different hazard of major bleeding (1479/29 270 [5.05%] versus 1733/29 187 [5.94%]; HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.74-1.01]), whereas lower-dose DOACs were associated with no statistically different hazard of stroke or systemic embolism (531/13 049 [3.96%] versus 1080/29 229 [3.69%]; HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.95-1.19]) but a lower hazard of intracranial bleeding (55/12 985 [0.42%] versus 409/29 187 [1.40%]; HR, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.21-0.37]), death (1082/13 049 [8.29%] versus 2460/29 229 [8.42%]; HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.83-0.97]), and major bleeding (564/12 985 [4.34%] versus 1733/29 187 [5.94%]; HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.45-0.88]). Treatment effects for standard- and lower-dose DOACs versus warfarin were consistent across age and sex for stroke or systemic embolism and death, whereas standard-dose DOACs were favored in patients with no history of vitamin K antagonist use (P=0.01) and lower creatinine clearance (P=0.09). For major bleeding, standard-dose DOACs were favored in patients with lower body weight (P=0.02). In the continuous covariate analysis, younger patients derived greater benefits from standard-dose (interaction P=0.02) and lower-dose DOACs (interaction P=0.01) versus warfarin.Conclusions: Compared with warfarin, DOACs have more favorable efficacy and safety profiles among patients with atrial fibrillation.
|
|
| 3. |
- Mach, François, et al.
(författare)
-
Adverse effects of statin therapy: perception vs. the evidence - focus on glucose homeostasis, cognitive, renal and hepatic function, haemorrhagic stroke and cataract
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European heart journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1522-9645 .- 0195-668X. ; 39:27, s. 2526-
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- To objectively appraise evidence for possible adverse effects of long-term statin therapy on glucose homeostasis, cognitive, renal and hepatic function, and risk for haemorrhagic stroke or cataract.A literature search covering 2000-2017 was performed. The Panel critically appraised the data and agreed by consensus on the categorization of reported adverse effects. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and genetic studies show that statin therapy is associated with a modest increase in the risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus (about one per thousand patient-years), generally defined by laboratory findings (glycated haemoglobin ≥6.5); this risk is significantly higher in the metabolic syndrome or prediabetes. Statin treatment does not adversely affect cognitive function, even at very low levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and is not associated with clinically significant deterioration of renal function, or development of cataract. Transient increases in liver enzymes occur in 0.5-2% of patients taking statins but are not clinically relevant; idiosyncratic liver injury due to statins is very rare and causality difficult to prove. The evidence base does not support an increased risk of haemorrhagic stroke in individuals without cerebrovascular disease; a small increase in risk was suggested by the Stroke Prevention by Aggressive Reduction of Cholesterol Levels study in subjects with prior stroke but has not been confirmed in the substantive evidence base of RCTs, cohort studies and case-control studies.Long-term statin treatment is remarkably safe with a low risk of clinically relevant adverse effects as defined above; statin-associated muscle symptoms were discussed in a previous Consensus Statement. Importantly, the established cardiovascular benefits of statin therapy far outweigh the risk of adverse effects.
|
|
