Dipyridamole plus aspirin versus aspirin alone in the secondary prevention after TIA or stroke: a meta-analysis by risk

Objectives: Our aim was to study the effect of combination therapy with aspirin and dipyridamole (A+D) over aspirin alone (ASA) in secondary prevention after transient ischemic attack or minor stroke of presumed arterial origin and to perform subgroup analyses to identify patients that might benefit most from secondary prevention with A+D. Data sources: The previously published meta-analysis of individual patient data was updated with data from ESPRIT (N=2,739); trials without data on the comparison of A+D versus ASA were excluded. Review methods: A meta-analysis was performed using Cox regression, including several subgroup analyses and following baseline risk stratification. Results: A total of 7,612 patients (5 trials) were included in the analyses, 3,800 allocated to A+D and 3,812 to ASA alone. The trial-adjusted hazard ratio for the composite event of vascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke was 0.82 (95% confidence interval 0.72-0.92). Hazard ratios did not differ in subgroup analyses based on age, sex, qualifying event, hypertension, diabetes, previous stroke, ischemic heart disease, aspirin dose, type of vessel disease and dipyridamole formulation, nor across baseline risk strata as assessed with two different risk scores. A+D were also more effective than ASA alone in preventing recurrent stroke, HR 0.78 (95% CI 0.68 – 0.90). Conclusion: The combination of aspirin and dipyridamole is more effective than aspirin alone in patients with TIA or ischemic stroke of presumed arterial origin in the secondary prevention of stroke and other vascular events. This superiority was found in all subgroups and was independent of baseline risk. ---------------------------7dc3521430776 Content-Disposition: form-data; name="c14_creators_1_name_family" Halkes

Variations in chemoprophylaxis for meningococcal disease: a retrospective case note review, analysis of routine prescribing data and questionnaire of general practitioners

BACKGROUND: Invasive meningococcal disease is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity in the UK. Administration of chemoprophylaxis to close contacts reduces the risk of a secondary case. However, unnecessary chemoprophylaxis may be associated with adverse reactions, increased antibiotic resistance and removal of organisms, such as Neisseria lactamica, which help to protect against meningococcal disease. Limited evidence exists to suggest that overuse of chemoprophylaxis may occur. This study aimed to evaluate prescribing of chemoprophylaxis for contacts of meningococcal disease by general practitioners and hospital staff. METHODS: Retrospective case note review of cases of meningococcal disease was conducted in one health district from 1st September 1997 to 31st August 1999. Routine hospital and general practitioner prescribing data was searched for chemoprophylactic prescriptions of rifampicin and ciprofloxacin. A questionnaire of general practitioners was undertaken to obtain more detailed information. RESULTS: Prescribing by hospital doctors was in line with recommendations by the Consultant for Communicable Disease Control. General practitioners prescribed 118% more chemoprophylaxis than was recommended. Size of practice and training status did not affect the level of additional prescribing, but there were significant differences by geographical area. The highest levels of prescribing occurred in areas with high disease rates and associated publicity. However, some true close contacts did not appear to receive prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of chemoprophylaxis is affected by a series of patient, doctor and community interactions. High publicity appears to increase demand for prophylaxis. Some true contacts do not receive appropriate chemoprophylaxis and are left at an unnecessarily increased risk

A Letter of Consequence: Referral Letters from General Practitioners to Secondary Mental Health Services

The referral letter is a key instrument in moving patients from primary to secondary care services. Consequently, the circumstances in which a referral should be made and its contents have been the subject of clinical guidelines. This article is based on a project that demonstrated that physicians do not adhere to clinical guidelines when referring patients to secondary mental health services. This research supports earlier findings into noncompliance with guidelines by general practitioners (GPs). The authors briefly note possible reasons, which have been the subject of some debate. They also present a content analysis of referral letters to demonstrate the important ways in which they differ from guideline criteria. However, their central argument is that the role of the referral letter in relation to the GP’s repertoire of treatments has not been understood fully. Such understanding implies the need for a reexamination of the support available for GPs.

Effect of telmisartan on functional outcome, recurrence, and blood pressure in patients with acute mild ischemic stroke: a PRoFESS subgroup analysis

Background and Purpose—High blood pressure (BP) is common in acute ischemic stroke and associated independently with a poor functional outcome. However, the management of BP acutely remains unclear because no large trials have been completed. Methods—The factorial PRoFESS secondary stroke prevention trial assessed BP-lowering and antiplatelet strategies in 20 332 patients; 1360 were enrolled within 72 hours of ischemic stroke, with telmisartan (angiotensin receptor antagonist, 80 mg/d, n647) vs placebo (n713). For this nonprespecified subgroup analysis, the primary outcome was functional outcome at 30 days; secondary outcomes included death, recurrence, and hemodynamic measures at up to 90 days. Analyses were adjusted for baseline prognostic variables and antiplatelet assignment. Results—Patients were representative of the whole trial (age 67 years, male 65%, baseline BP 147/84 mm Hg, small artery disease 60%, NIHSS 3) and baseline variables were similar between treatment groups. The mean time from stroke to recruitment was 58 hours. Combined death or dependency (modified Rankin scale: OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.84–1.26; P0.81; death: OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.27–4.04; and stroke recurrence: OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.68–2.89; P0.36) did not differ between the treatment groups. In comparison with placebo, telmisartan lowered BP (141/82 vs 135/78 mmHg, difference 6 to 7 mmHg and 2 to 4 mmHg; P0.001), pulse pressure (3 to 4 mmHg; P0.002), and rate-pressure product (466 mmHg.bpm; P0.0004). Conclusion—Treatment with telmisartan in 1360 patients with acute mild ischemic stroke and mildly elevated BP appeared to be safe with no excess in adverse events, was not associated with a significant effect on functional dependency, death, or recurrence, and modestly lowered BP.