| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Connolly, Stuart J., et al.
(author)
-
Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation
- 2009
-
In: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 361:12, s. 1139-1151
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Warfarin reduces the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation but increases the risk of hemorrhage and is difficult to use. Dabigatran is a new oral direct thrombin inhibitor. METHODS: In this noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned 18,113 patients who had atrial fibrillation and a risk of stroke to receive, in a blinded fashion, fixed doses of dabigatran--110 mg or 150 mg twice daily--or, in an unblinded fashion, adjusted-dose warfarin. The median duration of the follow-up period was 2.0 years. The primary outcome was stroke or systemic embolism. RESULTS: Rates of the primary outcome were 1.69% per year in the warfarin group, as compared with 1.53% per year in the group that received 110 mg of dabigatran (relative risk with dabigatran, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.11; P<0.001 for noninferiority) and 1.11% per year in the group that received 150 mg of dabigatran (relative risk, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.82; P<0.001 for superiority). The rate of major bleeding was 3.36% per year in the warfarin group, as compared with 2.71% per year in the group receiving 110 mg of dabigatran (P=0.003) and 3.11% per year in the group receiving 150 mg of dabigatran (P=0.31). The rate of hemorrhagic stroke was 0.38% per year in the warfarin group, as compared with 0.12% per year with 110 mg of dabigatran (P<0.001) and 0.10% per year with 150 mg of dabigatran (P<0.001). The mortality rate was 4.13% per year in the warfarin group, as compared with 3.75% per year with 110 mg of dabigatran (P=0.13) and 3.64% per year with 150 mg of dabigatran (P=0.051). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with atrial fibrillation, dabigatran given at a dose of 110 mg was associated with rates of stroke and systemic embolism that were similar to those associated with warfarin, as well as lower rates of major hemorrhage. Dabigatran administered at a dose of 150 mg, as compared with warfarin, was associated with lower rates of stroke and systemic embolism but similar rates of major hemorrhage. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00262600.)
|
|
| 3. |
- Diener, Hans-Christoph, et al.
(author)
-
Effects of aspirin plus extended-release dipyridamole versus clopidogrel and telmisartan on disability and cognitive function after recurrent stroke in patients with ischaemic stroke in the Prevention Regimen for Effectively Avoiding Second Strokes (PRoFESS) trial : a double-blind, active and placebo-controlled study.
- 2008
-
In: Lancet Neurology. - : Elsevier. - 1474-4422 .- 1474-4465. ; 7:10, s. 875-884
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The treatment of ischaemic stroke with neuroprotective drugs has been unsuccessful, and whether these compounds can be used to reduce disability after recurrent stroke is unknown. The putative neuroprotective effects of antiplatelet compounds and the angiotensin II receptor antagonist telmisartan were investigated in the Prevention Regimen for Effectively Avoiding Second Strokes (PRoFESS) trial.METHODS: Patients who had had an ischaemic stroke were randomly assigned in a two by two factorial design to receive either 25 mg aspirin (ASA) and 200 mg extended-release dipyridamole (ER-DP) twice a day or 75 mg clopidogrel once a day, and either 80 mg telmisartan or placebo once per day. The predefined endpoints for this substudy were disability after a recurrent stroke, assessed with the modified Rankin scale (mRS) and Barthel index at 3 months, and cognitive function, assessed with the mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score at 4 weeks after randomisation and at the penultimate visit. Analysis was by intention to treat. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00153062.FINDINGS: 20,332 patients (mean age 66 years) were randomised and followed-up for a median of 2.4 years. Recurrent strokes occurred in 916 (9%) patients randomly assigned to ASA with ER-DP and 898 (9%) patients randomly assigned to clopidogrel; 880 (9%) patients randomly assigned to telmisartan and 934 (9%) patients given placebo had recurrent strokes. mRS scores were not statistically different in patients with recurrent stroke who were treated with ASA and ER-DP versus clopidogrel (p=0.38), or with telmisartan versus placebo (p=0.61). There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with recurrent stroke with a good outcome, as measured with the Barthel index, across all treatment groups. Additionally, there was no significant difference in the median MMSE scores, the percentage of patients with an MMSE score of 24 points or less, the percentage of patients with a drop in MMSE score of 3 points or more between 1 month and the penultimate visit, and the number of patients with dementia among the treatment groups. There were no significant differences in the proportion of patients with cognitive impairment or dementia among the treatment groups.INTERPRETATION: Disability due to recurrent stroke and cognitive decline in patients with ischaemic stroke were not different between the two antiplatelet regimens and were not affected by the preventive use of telmisartan.
|
|
| 4. |
- Diener, Hans-Christoph, et al.
(author)
-
Stroke prevention using the oral direct thrombin inhibitor ximelagatran inpatients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Pooled analysis from the SPORTIF III ad V studies.
- 2006
-
In: Cerebrovascular Diseases. - : S. Karger AG. - 1421-9786 .- 1015-9770. ; 21:4, s. 279-293
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: To show results of a prespecified pooled analysis of the studies SPORTIF III (open-label) and SPORTIF V (double-blind), to assess the homogeneity of the results and to explore subgroup analyses and adverse events. Methods and Results: 7,329 patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and 1 additional stroke risk factor were randomized to warfarin (international normalized ratio 2.0-3.0) or ximelagatran (36 mg twice daily). Over 11,346 patient-years (mean 18.5 months/patient), 184 patients developed primary events of stroke and systemic embolism (ximelagatran 1.62 vs. warfarin 1.65%/year; p = 0.94). Heterogeneity between trials with respect to the primary event rate (study-by-treatment interaction p = 0.026) was found. This could not be explained statistically by baseline patient characteristics or by treatment (except perhaps by the better anticoagulation with warfarin in SPORTIF V) and was not evident for secondary end-points. There was no conclusive difference in major bleeding rates (ximelagatran 1.88 vs. warfarin 2.46%/year; p = 0.054), but combined minor plus major bleeding was lower with ximelagatran (31.7 vs. 38.7%/year; p < 0.0001). Elevation of liver enzymes occurred more frequently in patients taking ximelagatran (6.1% vs. warfarin 0.8%; p < 0.0001) and was reversible except in rare cases. Conclusions: Fixed-dose oral ximelagatran without coagulation monitoring prevented stroke and systemic embolism as effectively as warfarin in patients with AF. Differences in the results of the two trials might relate to consistency of warfarin anticoagulation, different degree of blinding in the two trials, other concomitant therapies or chance. Further investigation is required to explore the long-term safety profile of ximelagatran.
|
|
| 5. |
- Goadsby, Peter, et al.
(author)
-
Almotriptan and zolmitriptan in the acute treatment of migraine
- 2007
-
In: Acta Neurol Scand. ; 115:1, s. 34-40
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To compare almotriptan and zolmitriptan in the treatment of acute migraine. METHODS: This multicentre, double-blind trial randomized adult migraineurs to almotriptan 12.5 mg (n = 532) or zolmitriptan 2.5 mg (n = 530) for the treatment of a single migraine attack. The primary end point was sustained pain free plus no adverse events (SNAE); other end points included pain relief and pain free at several time points, sustained pain free, headache recurrence, use of rescue medication, functional impairment, time lost because of migraine, treatment acceptability, and overall treatment satisfaction. RESULTS: No significant difference was seen in SNAE (almotriptan 29.2% vs zolmitriptan 31.8%) or the other efficacy end points measured. The incidence of triptan-associated AEs and triptan-associated central nervous system AEs was significantly lower for patients receiving almotriptan compared to zolmitriptan. CONCLUSIONS: Almotriptan and zolmitriptan were associated with similar efficacy and overall tolerability in the treatment of acute migraine. Almotriptan was associated with a significantly lower rate of triptan-associated AEs.
|
|
| 6. |
- Kirchhof, Paulus, et al.
(author)
-
Outcome parameters for trials in atrial fibrillation: executive summary
- 2007
-
In: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1522-9645 .- 0195-668X. ; 28:22, s. 2803-2817
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common atrial arrhythmia, has a complex aetiology and causes relevant morbidity and mortality due to different mechanisms, including but not limited to stroke, heart failure, and tachy- or bradyarrhythmia. Current therapeutic options (rate control, rhythm control, antithrombotic therapy, 'upstream therapy') only prevent a part of this burden of disease. Several new treatment modalities are therefore under evaluation in controlled trials. Given the multifold clinical consequences of AF, trials in AF patients should assess the effect of therapy in each of the main outcome domains. This paper describes an expert consensus of required outcome parameters in seven relevant outcome domains, namely death, stroke, symptoms and quality of life, rhythm, left ventricular function, cost, and emerging outcome parameters. In addition to these 'requirements' for outcome assessment in AF trials, further, more detailed outcome parameters are described. In addition to a careful selection of a relevant primary outcome parameter, coverage of outcomes in all major domains of AF- related morbidity and mortality is desirable for any clinical trial in AF.
|
|
| 7. |
- Kirchhof, Paulus, et al.
(author)
-
Outcome parameters for trials in atrial fibrillation - Recommendations from a consensus conference organized by the German atrial fibrillation competence NETwork and the European Heart Rhythm Association
- 2007
-
In: Europace. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1532-2092 .- 1099-5129. ; 9:11, s. 1006-1023
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common atria[ arrhythmia, has a complex aetiology and causes relevant morbidity and mortality due to different mechanisms, including but not limited to stroke, heart failure, and tachy- or bradyarrhythmia. Current therapeutic options (rate control, rhythm control, antithrombotic therapy, 'upstream therapy') only prevent a part of this burden of disease. New treatment modalities are therefore currently under evaluation in clinical trials. Given the multifold clinical consequences of AF, controlled trials in AF patients should assess the effect of therapy in each of the main outcome domains. This paper describes an expert consensus of required outcome parameters in seven relevant outcome domains, namely death, stroke, symptoms and quality of life, rhythm, left ventricular function, cost, and emerging outcome parameters. In addition to these 'requirements' for outcome assessment in AF trials, further outcome parameters are described in each outcome domain. In addition to a careful selection of a relevant primary outcome parameter, coverage of outcomes in all major domains of AF-related morbidity and mortality is desirable for any clinical trial in AF.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
