Displaying publications 1 - 20 of 23 in total

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Bosch J, Lonn EM, Jung H, Zhu J, Liu L, Lopez-Jaramillo P, et al.
    Eur Heart J, 2021 08 17;42(31):2995-3007.
    PMID: 33963372 DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab225
    AIMS: Rosuvastatin (10 mg per day) compared with placebo reduced major adverse cardiovascular (CV) events by 24% in 12 705 participants at intermediate CV risk after 5.6 years. There was no benefit of blood pressure (BP) lowering treatment in the overall group, but a reduction in events in the third of participants with elevated systolic BP. After cessation of all the trial medications, we examined whether the benefits observed during the active treatment phase were sustained, enhanced, or attenuated.

    METHODS AND RESULTS: After the randomized treatment period (5.6 years), participants were invited to participate in 3.1 further years of observation (total 8.7 years). The first co-primary outcome for the entire length of follow-up was the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or CV death [major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE)-1], and the second was MACE-1 plus resuscitated cardiac arrest, heart failure, or coronary revascularization (MACE-2). In total, 9326 (78%) of 11 994 surviving Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE)-3 subjects consented to participate in extended follow-up. During 3.1 years of post-trial observation (total follow-up of 8.7 years), participants originally randomized to rosuvastatin compared with placebo had a 20% additional reduction in MACE-1 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64-0.99] and a 17% additional reduction in MACE-2 (95% CI 0.68-1.01). Therefore, over the 8.7 years of follow-up, there was a 21% reduction in MACE-1 (95% CI 0.69-0.90, P = 0.005) and 21% reduction in MACE-2 (95% CI 0.69-0.89, P = 0.002). There was no benefit of BP lowering in the overall study either during the active or post-trial observation period, however, a 24% reduction in MACE-1 was observed over 8.7 years.

    CONCLUSION: The CV benefits of rosuvastatin, and BP lowering in those with elevated systolic BP, compared with placebo continue to accrue for at least 3 years after cessation of randomized treatment in individuals without cardiovascular disease indicating a legacy effect.

    TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00468923.

  2. Bosch J, Lonn EM, Dagenais GR, Gao P, Lopez-Jaramillo P, Zhu J, et al.
    Stroke, 2021 08;52(8):2494-2501.
    PMID: 33985364 DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.030790
    Background and Purpose: The HOPE-3 trial (Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation–3) found that antihypertensive therapy combined with a statin reduced first stroke among people at intermediate cardiovascular risk. We report secondary analyses of stroke outcomes by stroke subtype, predictors, treatment effects in key subgroups.

    Methods: Using a 2-by-2 factorial design, 12 705 participants from 21 countries with vascular risk factors but without overt cardiovascular disease were randomized to candesartan 16 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg daily or placebo and to rosuvastatin 10 mg daily or placebo. The effect of the interventions on stroke subtypes was assessed.

    Results: Participants were 66 years old and 46% were women. Baseline blood pressure (138/82 mm Hg) was reduced by 6.0/3.0 mm Hg and LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; 3.3 mmol/L) was reduced by 0.90 mmol/L on active treatment. During 5.6 years of follow-up, 169 strokes occurred (117 ischemic, 29 hemorrhagic, 23 undetermined). Blood pressure lowering did not significantly reduce stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.59–1.08]), ischemic stroke (HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.55–1.15]), hemorrhagic stroke (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.34–1.48]), or strokes of undetermined origin (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.41–2.08]). Rosuvastatin significantly reduced strokes (HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.52–0.95]), with reductions mainly in ischemic stroke (HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.37–0.78]) but did not significantly affect hemorrhagic (HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.59–2.54]) or strokes of undetermined origin (HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 0.57–2.95]). The combination of both interventions compared with double placebo substantially and significantly reduced strokes (HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.36–0.87]) and ischemic strokes (HR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.23–0.72]).

    Conclusions: Among people at intermediate cardiovascular risk but without overt cardiovascular disease, rosuvastatin 10 mg daily significantly reduced first stroke. Blood pressure lowering combined with rosuvastatin reduced ischemic stroke by 59%. Both therapies are safe and generally well tolerated.

    Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00468923.

  3. Bosch J, Eikelboom JW, Connolly SJ, Bruns NC, Lanius V, Yuan F, et al.
    Can J Cardiol, 2017 08;33(8):1027-1035.
    PMID: 28754388 DOI: 10.1016/j.cjca.2017.06.001
    BACKGROUND: Long-term aspirin prevents vascular events but is only modestly effective. Rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin might be more effective than aspirin alone for vascular prevention in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). Rivaroxaban as well as aspirin increase upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and this might be prevented by proton pump inhibitor therapy.

    METHODS: Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) is a double-blind superiority trial comparing rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily combined with aspirin 100 mg once daily or rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily vs aspirin 100 mg once daily for prevention of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death in patients with stable CAD or PAD. Patients not taking a proton pump inhibitor were also randomized, using a partial factorial design, to pantoprazole 40 mg once daily or placebo. The trial was designed to have at least 90% power to detect a 20% reduction in each of the rivaroxaban treatment arms compared with aspirin and to detect a 50% reduction in upper GI complications with pantoprazole compared with placebo.

    RESULTS: Between February 2013 and May 2016, we recruited 27,395 participants from 602 centres in 33 countries; 17,598 participants were included in the pantoprazole vs placebo comparison. At baseline, the mean age was 68.2 years, 22.0% were female, 90.6% had CAD, and 27.3% had PAD.

    CONCLUSIONS: COMPASS will provide information on the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban, alone or in combination with aspirin, in the long-term management of patients with stable CAD or PAD, and on the efficacy and safety of pantoprazole in preventing upper GI complications in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy.

  4. Botto F, Alonso-Coello P, Chan MT, Villar JC, Xavier D, Srinathan S, et al.
    Anesthesiology, 2014 Mar;120(3):564-78.
    PMID: 24534856 DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000000113
    BACKGROUND: Myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS) was defined as prognostically relevant myocardial injury due to ischemia that occurs during or within 30 days after noncardiac surgery. The study's four objectives were to determine the diagnostic criteria, characteristics, predictors, and 30-day outcomes of MINS.

    METHODS: In this international, prospective cohort study of 15,065 patients aged 45 yr or older who underwent in-patient noncardiac surgery, troponin T was measured during the first 3 postoperative days. Patients with a troponin T level of 0.04 ng/ml or greater (elevated "abnormal" laboratory threshold) were assessed for ischemic features (i.e., ischemic symptoms and electrocardiography findings). Patients adjudicated as having a nonischemic troponin elevation (e.g., sepsis) were excluded. To establish diagnostic criteria for MINS, the authors used Cox regression analyses in which the dependent variable was 30-day mortality (260 deaths) and independent variables included preoperative variables, perioperative complications, and potential MINS diagnostic criteria.

    RESULTS: An elevated troponin after noncardiac surgery, irrespective of the presence of an ischemic feature, independently predicted 30-day mortality. Therefore, the authors' diagnostic criterion for MINS was a peak troponin T level of 0.03 ng/ml or greater judged due to myocardial ischemia. MINS was an independent predictor of 30-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.87; 95% CI, 2.96-5.08) and had the highest population-attributable risk (34.0%, 95% CI, 26.6-41.5) of the perioperative complications. Twelve hundred patients (8.0%) suffered MINS, and 58.2% of these patients would not have fulfilled the universal definition of myocardial infarction. Only 15.8% of patients with MINS experienced an ischemic symptom.

    CONCLUSION: Among adults undergoing noncardiac surgery, MINS is common and associated with substantial mortality.

  5. Connolly SJ, Eikelboom JW, Bosch J, Dagenais G, Dyal L, Lanas F, et al.
    Lancet, 2018 01 20;391(10117):205-218.
    PMID: 29132879 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32458-3
    BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and is a consequence of acute thrombotic events involving activation of platelets and coagulation proteins. Factor Xa inhibitors and aspirin each reduce thrombotic events but have not yet been tested in combination or against each other in patients with stable coronary artery disease.

    METHODS: In this multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, outpatient trial, patients with stable coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease were recruited at 602 hospitals, clinics, or community centres in 33 countries. This paper reports on patients with coronary artery disease. Eligible patients with coronary artery disease had to have had a myocardial infarction in the past 20 years, multi-vessel coronary artery disease, history of stable or unstable angina, previous multi-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention, or previous multi-vessel coronary artery bypass graft surgery. After a 30-day run in period, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive rivaroxaban (2·5 mg orally twice a day) plus aspirin (100 mg once a day), rivaroxaban alone (5 mg orally twice a day), or aspirin alone (100 mg orally once a day). Randomisation was computer generated. Each treatment group was double dummy, and the patients, investigators, and central study staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome of the COMPASS trial was the occurrence of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01776424, and is closed to new participants.

    FINDINGS: Between March 12, 2013, and May 10, 2016, 27 395 patients were enrolled to the COMPASS trial, of whom 24 824 patients had stable coronary artery disease from 558 centres. The combination of rivaroxaban plus aspirin reduced the primary outcome more than aspirin alone (347 [4%] of 8313 vs 460 [6%] of 8261; hazard ratio [HR] 0·74, 95% CI 0·65-0·86, p<0·0001). By comparison, treatment with rivaroxaban alone did not significantly improve the primary outcome when compared with treatment with aspirin alone (411 [5%] of 8250 vs 460 [6%] of 8261; HR 0·89, 95% CI 0·78-1·02, p=0·094). Combined rivaroxaban plus aspirin treatment resulted in more major bleeds than treatment with aspirin alone (263 [3%] of 8313 vs 158 [2%] of 8261; HR 1·66, 95% CI 1·37-2·03, p<0·0001), and similarly, more bleeds were seen in the rivaroxaban alone group than in the aspirin alone group (236 [3%] of 8250 vs 158 [2%] of 8261; HR 1·51, 95% CI 1·23-1·84, p<0·0001). The most common site of major bleeding was gastrointestinal, occurring in 130 [2%] patients who received combined rivaroxaban plus aspirin, in 84 [1%] patients who received rivaroxaban alone, and in 61 [1%] patients who received aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban plus aspirin reduced mortality when compared with aspirin alone (262 [3%] of 8313 vs 339 [4%] of 8261; HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·65-0·90, p=0·0012).

    INTERPRETATION: In patients with stable coronary artery disease, addition of rivaroxaban to aspirin lowered major vascular events, but increased major bleeding. There was no significant increase in intracranial bleeding or other critical organ bleeding. There was also a significant net benefit in favour of rivaroxaban plus aspirin and deaths were reduced by 23%. Thus, addition of rivaroxaban to aspirin has the potential to substantially reduce morbidity and mortality from coronary artery disease worldwide.

    FUNDING: Bayer AG.
  6. Dorison CA, Lerner JS, Heller BH, Rothman AJ, Kawachi II, Wang K, et al.
    Affect Sci, 2022 Sep;3(3):577-602.
    PMID: 36185503 DOI: 10.1007/s42761-022-00128-3
    The COVID-19 pandemic (and its aftermath) highlights a critical need to communicate health information effectively to the global public. Given that subtle differences in information framing can have meaningful effects on behavior, behavioral science research highlights a pressing question: Is it more effective to frame COVID-19 health messages in terms of potential losses (e.g., "If you do not practice these steps, you can endanger yourself and others") or potential gains (e.g., "If you practice these steps, you can protect yourself and others")? Collecting data in 48 languages from 15,929 participants in 84 countries, we experimentally tested the effects of message framing on COVID-19-related judgments, intentions, and feelings. Loss- (vs. gain-) framed messages increased self-reported anxiety among participants cross-nationally with little-to-no impact on policy attitudes, behavioral intentions, or information seeking relevant to pandemic risks. These results were consistent across 84 countries, three variations of the message framing wording, and 560 data processing and analytic choices. Thus, results provide an empirical answer to a global communication question and highlight the emotional toll of loss-framed messages. Critically, this work demonstrates the importance of considering unintended affective consequences when evaluating nudge-style interventions.
  7. Eikelboom JW, Connolly SJ, Bosch J, Dagenais GR, Hart RG, Shestakovska O, et al.
    N Engl J Med, 2017 10 05;377(14):1319-1330.
    PMID: 28844192 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1709118
    BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary cardiovascular prevention.

    METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months.

    RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=-4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group.

    CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events. (Funded by Bayer; COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01776424 .).

  8. Eikelboom JW, Bosch J, Connolly SJ, Tyrwitt J, Fox KAA, Muehlhofer E, et al.
    Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother, 2022 Dec 02;8(8):786-795.
    PMID: 35383832 DOI: 10.1093/ehjcvp/pvac023
    AIMS: To describe outcomes of patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) and/or peripheral artery disease (PAD) enrolled in the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) randomized trial who were treated with the combination of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily and aspirin 100 mg once daily during long-term open-label extension (LTOLE).

    METHODS AND RESULTS: Of the 27 395 patients enrolled in COMPASS, 12 964 (mean age at baseline 67.2 years) from 455 sites in 32 countries were enrolled in LTOLE and treated with the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin for a median of 374 additional days (range 1-1191 days). During LTOLE, the incident events per 100 patient years were as follows: for the primary outcome [cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI)] 2.35 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.11-2.61], mortality 1.87 (1.65-2.10), stroke 0.62 (0.50-0.76), and MI 1.02 (0.86-1.19), with CIs that overlapped those seen during the randomized treatment phase with the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin. The incidence rates for major and minor bleeding were 1.01 (0.86-1.19) and 2.49 (2.24-2.75), compared with 1.67 (1.48-1.87) and 5.11 (95% CI 4.77-5.47), respectively, during the randomized treatment phase with the combination.

    CONCLUSION: In patients with chronic CAD and/or PAD, extended combination treatment for a median of 1 year and a maximum of 3 years was associated with incidence rates for efficacy and bleeding that were similar to or lower than those seen during the randomized treatment phase, without any new safety signals.

  9. Hrusak O, Kalina T, Wolf J, Balduzzi A, Provenzi M, Rizzari C, et al.
    Eur J Cancer, 2020 06;132:11-16.
    PMID: 32305831 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.03.021
    INTRODUCTION: Since the beginning of COVID-19 pandemic, it is known that the severe course of the disease occurs mostly among the elderly, whereas it is rare among children and young adults. Comorbidities, in particular, diabetes and hypertension, clearly associated with age, besides obesity and smoke, are strongly associated with the need for intensive treatment and a dismal outcome. A weaker immunity of the elderly has been proposed as a possible explanation of this uneven age distribution. Thus, there is concern that children treated for cancer may allso be at risk for an unfavourable course of infection. Along the same line, anecdotal information from Wuhan, China, mentioned a severe course of COVID-19 in a child treated for leukaemia.

    AIM AND METHODS: We made a flash survey on COVID-19 incidence and severity among children on anticancer treatment. Respondents were asked by email to fill in a short Web-based survey.

    RESULTS: We received reports from 25 countries, where approximately 10,000 patients at risk are followed up. At the time of the survey, more than 200 of these children were tested, nine of whom were positive for COVID-19. Eight of the nine cases had asymptomatic to mild disease, and one was just diagnosed with COVID-19. We also discuss preventive measures that are in place or should be taken and treatment options in immunocompromised children with COVID-19.

    CONCLUSION: Thus, even children receiving anticancer chemotherapy may have a mild or asymptomatic course of COVID-19. While we should not underestimate the risk of developing a more severe course of COVID-19 than that observed here, the intensity of preventive measures should not cause delays or obstructions in oncological treatment.

  10. Joseph P, Pais P, Gao P, Teo K, Xavier D, Lopez-Jaramillo P, et al.
    Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis, 2023 Feb;33(2):434-440.
    PMID: 36604262 DOI: 10.1016/j.numecd.2022.11.001
    BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Vitamin D has mostly been tested in Western populations. We examined the effect of high dose vitamin D in a population drawn predominantly from outside of Western countries.

    METHODS AND RESULTS: This randomized trial tested vitamin D 60,000 IU monthly in 5670 participants without vascular disease but at increased CV risk. The primary outcome was fracture. The secondary outcome was the composite of CV death, myocardial infarction stroke, cancer, fracture or fall. Death was a pre-specified outcome. Mean age was 63.9 years, and 3005 (53.0%) were female. 3034 (53.5%) participants resided in South Asia, 1904 (33.6%) in South East Asia, 480 (8.5%) in South America, and 252 (4.4%) in other regions. Mean follow-up was 4.6 years. A fracture occurred in 20 participants (0.2 per 100 person years) assigned to vitamin D, and 19 (0.1 per 100 person years) assigned to placebo (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.57-1.99, p-value = 0.86). The secondary outcome occurred in 222 participants (1.8 per 100 person years) assigned to vitamin D, and 198 (1.6 per 100 person years) assigned to placebo (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.93-1.37, p = 0.22). 172 (1.3 per 100 person years) participants assigned to vitamin D died, compared with 135 (1.0 per 100 person years) assigned to placebo (HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03-1.61, p = 0.03).

    CONCLUSION: In a population predominantly from South Asia, South East Asia and South America, high-dose vitamin D did not reduce adverse skeletal or non-skeletal outcomes. Higher mortality was observed in the vitamin D group.

    REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01646437.

  11. Joseph P, Pais P, Dans AL, Bosch J, Xavier D, Lopez-Jaramillo P, et al.
    Am Heart J, 2018 12;206:72-79.
    PMID: 30342297 DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2018.07.012
    BACKGROUND: It is hypothesized that in individuals without clinical cardiovascular disease (CVD), but at increased CVD risk, a 50% to 60% reduction in CVD risk could be achieved using fixed dose combination (FDC) therapy (usually comprised of multiple blood-pressure agents and a statin [with or without aspirin]) in a single "polypill". However, the impact of a polypill in preventing clinical CV events has not been evaluated in a large randomized controlled trial.

    METHODS: TIPS-3 is a 2x2x2 factorial randomized controlled trial that will examine the effect of a FDC polypill on major CV outcomes in a primary prevention population. This study aims to determine whether the Polycap (comprised of atenolol, ramipril, hydrochlorothiazide, and a statin) reduces CV events in persons without a history of CVD, but who are at least at intermediate CVD risk. Additional interventions in the factorial design of the study will compare the effect of (1) aspirin versus placebo on CV events (and cancer), (2) vitamin D versus placebo on the risk of fractures, and (3) the combined effect of aspirin and the Polycap on CV events.

    RESULTS: The study has randomized 5713 participants across 9 countries. Mean age of the study population is 63.9 years, and 53% are female. Mean INTERHEART risk score is 16.8, which is consistent with a study population at intermediate CVD risk.

    CONCLUSION: Results of the TIP-3 study will be key to determining the appropriateness of FDC therapy as a strategy in the global prevention of CVD.

  12. Klionsky DJ, Abdel-Aziz AK, Abdelfatah S, Abdellatif M, Abdoli A, Abel S, et al.
    Autophagy, 2021 Jan;17(1):1-382.
    PMID: 33634751 DOI: 10.1080/15548627.2020.1797280
    In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.
  13. Klionsky DJ, Abdelmohsen K, Abe A, Abedin MJ, Abeliovich H, Acevedo Arozena A, et al.
    Autophagy, 2016;12(1):1-222.
    PMID: 26799652 DOI: 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356
  14. Lonn E, Bosch J, Pogue J, Avezum A, Chazova I, Dans A, et al.
    Can J Cardiol, 2016 Mar;32(3):311-8.
    PMID: 26481083 DOI: 10.1016/j.cjca.2015.07.001
    Cholesterol and blood pressure (BP) can be effectively and safely lowered with statin drugs and BP-lowering drugs, reducing major cardiovascular (CV) events by 20%-30% within 5 years in high-risk individuals. However, there are limited data in lower-risk populations. The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation-3 (HOPE-3) trial is evaluating whether cholesterol lowering with a statin drug, BP lowering with low doses of 2 antihypertensive agents, and their combination safely reduce major CV events in individuals at intermediate risk who have had no previous vascular events and have average cholesterol and BP levels.
  15. Lonn EM, Bosch J, López-Jaramillo P, Zhu J, Liu L, Pais P, et al.
    N Engl J Med, 2016 May 26;374(21):2009-20.
    PMID: 27041480 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1600175
    BACKGROUND: Antihypertensive therapy reduces the risk of cardiovascular events among high-risk persons and among those with a systolic blood pressure of 160 mm Hg or higher, but its role in persons at intermediate risk and with lower blood pressure is unclear.
    METHODS: In one comparison from a 2-by-2 factorial trial, we randomly assigned 12,705 participants at intermediate risk who did not have cardiovascular disease to receive either candesartan at a dose of 16 mg per day plus hydrochlorothiazide at a dose of 12.5 mg per day or placebo. The first coprimary outcome was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke; the second coprimary outcome additionally included resuscitated cardiac arrest, heart failure, and revascularization. The median follow-up was 5.6 years.
    RESULTS: The mean blood pressure of the participants at baseline was 138.1/81.9 mm Hg; the decrease in blood pressure was 6.0/3.0 mm Hg greater in the active-treatment group than in the placebo group. The first coprimary outcome occurred in 260 participants (4.1%) in the active-treatment group and in 279 (4.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.10; P=0.40); the second coprimary outcome occurred in 312 participants (4.9%) and 328 participants (5.2%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.11; P=0.51). In one of the three prespecified hypothesis-based subgroups, participants in the subgroup for the upper third of systolic blood pressure (>143.5 mm Hg) who were in the active-treatment group had significantly lower rates of the first and second coprimary outcomes than those in the placebo group; effects were neutral in the middle and lower thirds (P=0.02 and P=0.009, respectively, for trend in the two outcomes).
    CONCLUSIONS: Therapy with candesartan at a dose of 16 mg per day plus hydrochlorothiazide at a dose of 12.5 mg per day was not associated with a lower rate of major cardiovascular events than placebo among persons at intermediate risk who did not have cardiovascular disease. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00468923.).
    Note: Malaysia is a study site (Author: Yusoff K)
  16. Moayyedi P, Eikelboom JW, Bosch J, Connolly SJ, Dyal L, Shestakovska O, et al.
    Gastroenterology, 2019 08;157(2):403-412.e5.
    PMID: 31054846 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.04.041
    BACKGROUND & AIMS: Antiplatelets and anticoagulants are associated with increased upper gastrointestinal bleeding. We evaluated whether proton pump inhibitor therapy could reduce this risk.

    METHODS: We performed a 3 × 2 partial factorial double-blind trial of 17,598 participants with stable cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease. Participants were randomly assigned to groups given pantoprazole 40 mg daily or placebo, as well as rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily with aspirin 100 mg once daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily, or aspirin 100 mg alone. The primary outcome was time to first upper gastrointestinal event, defined as a composite of overt bleeding, upper gastrointestinal bleeding from a gastroduodenal lesion or of unknown origin, occult bleeding, symptomatic gastroduodenal ulcer or ≥5 erosions, upper gastrointestinal obstruction, or perforation.

    RESULTS: There was no significant difference in upper gastrointestinal events between the pantoprazole group (102 of 8791 events) and the placebo group (116 of 8807 events) (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-1.15). Pantoprazole significantly reduced bleeding of gastroduodenal lesions (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.94; P = .03); this reduction was greater when we used a post-hoc definition of bleeding gastroduodenal lesion (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.74), although the number needed to treat still was high (n = 982; 95% confidence interval, 609-2528).

    CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized placebo-controlled trial, we found that routine use of proton pump inhibitors in patients receiving low-dose anticoagulation and/or aspirin for stable cardiovascular disease does not reduce upper gastrointestinal events, but may reduce bleeding from gastroduodenal lesions. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01776424.

  17. Moayyedi P, Eikelboom JW, Bosch J, Connolly SJ, Dyal L, Shestakovska O, et al.
    Gastroenterology, 2019 09;157(3):682-691.e2.
    PMID: 31152740 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.05.056
    BACKGROUND & AIMS: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are effective at treating acid-related disorders. These drugs are well tolerated in the short term, but long-term treatment was associated with adverse events in observational studies. We aimed to confirm these findings in an adequately powered randomized trial.

    METHODS: We performed a 3 × 2 partial factorial double-blind trial of 17,598 participants with stable cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease randomly assigned to groups given pantoprazole (40 mg daily, n = 8791) or placebo (n = 8807). Participants were also randomly assigned to groups that received rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) with aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg) alone. We collected data on development of pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, other enteric infections, fractures, gastric atrophy, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, chronic obstructive lung disease, dementia, cardiovascular disease, cancer, hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality every 6 months. Patients were followed up for a median of 3.01 years, with 53,152 patient-years of follow-up.

    RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the pantoprazole and placebo groups in safety events except for enteric infections (1.4% vs 1.0% in the placebo group; odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.75). For all other safety outcomes, proportions were similar between groups except for C difficile infection, which was approximately twice as common in the pantoprazole vs the placebo group, although there were only 13 events, so this difference was not statistically significant.

    CONCLUSIONS: In a large placebo-controlled randomized trial, we found that pantoprazole is not associated with any adverse event when used for 3 years, with the possible exception of an increased risk of enteric infections. ClinicalTrials.gov Number: NCT01776424.

  18. Rynja SP, Bosch JLHR, de Jong TPVM, van der Werf-Kok ET, de Kort LMO
    J Pediatr Urol, 2019 Dec;15(6):625.e1-625.e8.
    PMID: 31521557 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2019.08.007
    OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to investigate the coping styles used by patients with hypospadias. Long-term hypospadias studies generally show satisfying outcomes, but some report a lower quality of life (QoL) or poorer psychosocial adjustment, particularly in patients with proximal hypospadias. A lower QoL or psychosocial adjustment was found to be associated with passive coping styles in other pediatric patient populations. Hypothetically, patients with hypospadias also develop different coping styles due to medical experiences in childhood, leading to the lower QoL outcomes on the long term. However, coping styles of patients with hypospadias have never been analyzed.

    PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult men with hypospadias repair in childhood were recruited (n = 55; aged 19.9 [IQR 19.2-22.1]). Coping styles were determined with the Utrecht Coping List (UCL) and results compared with a reference group of male students (n = 55, age 20-30 years, no medical history). Sub analysis of coping styles of the hypospadias groups was done based on three items: severity of hypospadias, time of last hypospadias surgery and occurrence of postoperative complications.

    RESULTS: Compared to the reference groups, patients with hypospadias had higher scores on Avoidance (P 

  19. Wang K, Goldenberg A, Dorison CA, Miller JK, Uusberg A, Lerner JS, et al.
    Nat Hum Behav, 2021 Aug;5(8):1089-1110.
    PMID: 34341554 DOI: 10.1038/s41562-021-01173-x
    The COVID-19 pandemic has increased negative emotions and decreased positive emotions globally. Left unchecked, these emotional changes might have a wide array of adverse impacts. To reduce negative emotions and increase positive emotions, we tested the effectiveness of reappraisal, an emotion-regulation strategy that modifies how one thinks about a situation. Participants from 87 countries and regions (n = 21,644) were randomly assigned to one of two brief reappraisal interventions (reconstrual or repurposing) or one of two control conditions (active or passive). Results revealed that both reappraisal interventions (vesus both control conditions) consistently reduced negative emotions and increased positive emotions across different measures. Reconstrual and repurposing interventions had similar effects. Importantly, planned exploratory analyses indicated that reappraisal interventions did not reduce intentions to practice preventive health behaviours. The findings demonstrate the viability of creating scalable, low-cost interventions for use around the world. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The stage 1 protocol for this Registered Report was accepted in principle on 12 May 2020. The protocol, as accepted by the journal, can be found at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.4878591.v1.
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links