AIMS: We assessed outcomes of a pilot long-term stroke care clinic which combined secondary prevention and rehabilitation at community level.
SETTINGS AND DESIGN: A prospective observational study of stroke patients treated between 2008 and 2010 at a primary care teaching facility.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Analysis of patients was done at initial contact and at 1-year post treatment. Clinical outcomes included stroke risk factor(s) control, depression according to Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ9), and level of independence using Barthel Index (BI).
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Differences in means between baseline and post treatment were compared using paired t-tests or Wilcoxon-signed rank test. Significance level was set at 0.05.
RESULTS: Ninety-one patients were analyzed. Their mean age was 62.9 [standard deviation (SD) 10.9] years, mean stroke episodes were 1.30 (SD 0.5). The median interval between acute stroke and first contact with the clinic 4.0 (interquartile range 9.0) months. Mean systolic blood pressure decreased by 9.7 mmHg (t = 2.79, P = 0.007), while mean diastolic blood pressure remained unchanged at 80mmHg (z = 1.87, P = 0.06). Neurorehabilitation treatment was given to 84.6% of the patients. Median BI increased from 81 (range: 2-100) to 90.5 (range: 27-100) (Z = 2.34, P = 0.01). Median PHQ9 scores decreased from 4.0 (range: 0-22) to 3.0 (range: 0-19) though the change was not significant (Z= -0.744, P = 0.457).
CONCLUSIONS: Primary care-driven long-term stroke care services yield favorable outcomes for blood pressure control and functional level.
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 .).
METHODS: In June 2007, 102 HIV-infected male prisoners within 6 months of community-release were anonymously surveyed in Kota Bharu, Malaysia.
RESULTS: Nearly all subjects (95%) met criteria for opioid dependence. Overall, 66% of participants reported sharing needles, and 37% reported unprotected sex in the 30 days prior to incarceration. During this period, 77% reported injection drug use, with 71% injecting daily and 65% injecting more than one substance. Injection of buprenorphine (28%), benzodiazepines (28%) and methamphetamines (49%) was reported. Nearly all (97%) of those reporting unprotected sex did so with someone not known to be HIV-infected. While 51% believed that opioid substitution therapy (OST) would be helpful, only 33% believed they needed it to prevent relapse after prison release. Most participants (70%) expressed interest in learning more about OST. Those reporting the highest injection risks were more likely to believe OST would be helpful (p<0.05), to believe that it was needed to prevent relapse post-release (p<0.05), and to express interest in learning more about OST (p<0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Secondary HIV prevention among prisoners in Malaysia is crucial to reduce community HIV transmission after release. Effectively reducing HIV risk associated with opioid injection will require OST expansion, including social marketing to improve its acceptability and careful monitoring. Access to sterile injection equipment, particularly for non-opioid injectors, and behavioral interventions that reduce sexual risk will also be required.
Methods: We recruited independent patients with clinically confirmed lacunar ischaemic stroke without cognitive impairment to a prospective randomised clinical trial, LACunar Intervention-1 (LACI-1). We randomised patients using a central web-based system, 1:1:1:1 with minimisation, to masked ISMN 25 mg bd, cilostazol 100 mg bd, both ISMN and cilostazol started immediately, or both with start delayed. We escalated doses to target over two weeks, sustained for eight weeks. Primary outcome was the proportion achieving target dose. Secondary outcomes included symptoms, safety (haemorrhage, recurrent vascular events), cognition, haematology, vascular function, and neuroimaging. LACI-1 was powered (80%, alpha 0.05) to detect 35% (90% versus 55%) difference between the proportion reaching target dose on one versus both drugs at 55 patients. Registration ISRCTN12580546.
Findings: LACI-1 enrolled 57 participants between March 2016 and August 2017: 18 (32%) females, mean age 66 (SD 11, range 40-85) years, onset-randomisation 203 (range 6-920) days. Most achieved full (64%) or over half (87%) dose, with no difference between cilostazol vs ISMN, single vs dual drugs. Headache and palpitations increased initially then declined similarly with dual versus single drugs. There was no between-group difference in BP, pulse-wave velocity, haemoglobin or platelet function, but pulse rate was higher (mean difference, MD, 6.4, 95%CI 1.2-11.7, p = 0.02), platelet count higher (MD 35.7, 95%CI 2.8, 68.7, p = 0.03) and white matter hyperintensities reduced more (Chi-square p = 0.007) with cilostazol versus no cilostazol.
Interpretation: Cilostazol and ISMN are well tolerated when the dose is escalated, without safety concerns, in patients with lacunar stroke. Larger trials with longer term follow-up are justified.
Funding: Alzheimer's Society (AS-PG-14-033).
RECENT FINDINGS: A major care gap persists throughout the world in the secondary prevention of fragility fractures. Systematic reviews have confirmed that the Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) model of care is associated with significant improvements in rates of bone mineral density testing, initiation of osteoporosis treatment and adherence with treatment for individuals who sustain fragility fractures. Further, these improvements in the processes of care resulted in significant reductions in refracture risk and lower post-fracture mortality. The primary challenge facing health systems now is to ensure that best practice is delivered effectively in the local healthcare setting. Publication of clinical standards for FLS at the organisational and patient level in combination with the establishment of national registries has provided a mechanism for FLS to benchmark and improve their performance. Major efforts are ongoing at the global, regional and national level to improve the acute care, rehabilitation and secondary prevention for individuals who sustain fragility fractures. Active participation in these initiatives has the potential to eliminate current care gaps in the coming decade.
SETTING: An academic medical center.
METHODS: Weight changes of patients who received weight loss medications after bariatric surgery from 2012 to 2015 at a single center were studied.
RESULTS: Weight loss medications prescribed for 209 patients were phentermine (n = 156, 74.6%), phentermine/topiramate extended release (n = 25, 12%), lorcaserin (n = 18, 8.6%), and naltrexone slow-release/bupropion slow-release (n = 10, 4.8%). Of patients, 37% lost>5% of their total weight 1 year after pharmacotherapy was prescribed. There were significant differences in weight loss at 1 year in gastric banding versus sleeve gastrectomy patients (4.6% versus .3%, P = .02) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass versus sleeve gastrectomy patients (2.8% versus .3%, P = .01).There was a significant positive correlation between body mass index at the start of adjuvant pharmacotherapy and total weight loss at 1 year (P = .025).
CONCLUSION: Adjuvant weight loss medications halted weight regain in patients who underwent bariatric surgery. More than one third achieved>5% weight loss with the addition of weight loss medication. The observed response was significantly better in gastric bypass and gastric banding patients compared with sleeve gastrectomy patients. Furthermore, adjuvant pharmacotherapy was more effective in patients with higher body mass index. Given the low risk of medications compared with revisional surgery, it can be a reasonable option in the appropriate patients. Further studies are necessary to determine the optimal medication and timing of adjuvant pharmacotherapy after bariatric surgery.
METHODS: In the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiological study (PURE), individuals aged 35-70 years from urban and rural communities in 27 countries were considered for inclusion. We recorded information on participants' sociodemographic characteristics, risk factors, medication use, cardiac investigations, and interventions. 168 490 participants who enrolled in the first two of the three phases of PURE were followed up prospectively for incident cardiovascular disease and death.
FINDINGS: From Jan 6, 2005 to May 6, 2019, 202 072 individuals were recruited to the study. The mean age of women included in the study was 50·8 (SD 9·9) years compared with 51·7 (10) years for men. Participants were followed up for a median of 9·5 (IQR 8·5-10·9) years. Women had a lower cardiovascular disease risk factor burden using two different risk scores (INTERHEART and Framingham). Primary prevention strategies, such as adoption of several healthy lifestyle behaviours and use of proven medicines, were more frequent in women than men. Incidence of cardiovascular disease (4·1 [95% CI 4·0-4·2] for women vs 6·4 [6·2-6·6] for men per 1000 person-years; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0·75 [95% CI 0·72-0·79]) and all-cause death (4·5 [95% CI 4·4-4·7] for women vs 7·4 [7·2-7·7] for men per 1000 person-years; aHR 0·62 [95% CI 0·60-0·65]) were also lower in women. By contrast, secondary prevention treatments, cardiac investigations, and coronary revascularisation were less frequent in women than men with coronary artery disease in all groups of countries. Despite this, women had lower risk of recurrent cardiovascular disease events (20·0 [95% CI 18·2-21·7] versus 27·7 [95% CI 25·6-29·8] per 1000 person-years in men, adjusted hazard ratio 0·73 [95% CI 0·64-0·83]) and women had lower 30-day mortality after a new cardiovascular disease event compared with men (22% in women versus 28% in men; p<0·0001). Differences between women and men in treatments and outcomes were more marked in LMICs with little differences in HICs in those with or without previous cardiovascular disease.
INTERPRETATION: Treatments for cardiovascular disease are more common in women than men in primary prevention, but the reverse is seen in secondary prevention. However, consistently better outcomes are observed in women than in men, both in those with and without previous cardiovascular disease. Improving cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment, especially in LMICs, should be vigorously pursued in both women and men.
FUNDING: Full funding sources are listed at the end of the paper (see Acknowledgments).