RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) often remains undiagnosed, and it independently raises the risk of ischemic stroke, which is largely reversible by oral anticoagulation. Although randomized trials using longer term screening approaches increase identification of AF, no studies have established that AF screening lowers stroke rates. OBJECTIVES: To address this knowledge gap, the GUARD-AF (Reducing Stroke by Screening for Undiagnosed Atrial Fibrillation in Elderly Individuals) trial screened participants in primary care practices using a 14-day continuous electrocardiographic monitor to determine whether screening for AF coupled with physician/patient decision-making to use oral anticoagulation reduces stroke and provides a net clinical benefit compared with usual care. METHODS: GUARD-AF was a prospective, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial designed to test whether screening for AF in people aged ≥70 years using a 14-day single-lead continuous electrocardiographic patch monitor could identify patients with undiagnosed AF and reduce stroke. Participants were randomized 1:1 to screening or usual care. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were hospitalization due to all-cause stroke and bleeding, respectively. Analyses used the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: Enrollment began on December 17, 2019, and involved 149 primary care sites across the United States. The COVID-19 pandemic led to premature termination of enrollment, with 11,905 participants in the intention-to-treat population. Median follow-up was 15.3 months (Q1-Q3: 13.8-17.6 months). Median age was 75 years (Q1-Q3: 72-79 years), and 56.6% were female. The risk of stroke in the screening group was 0.7% vs 0.6% in the usual care group (HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.69-1.75). The risk of bleeding was 1.0% in the screening group vs 1.1% in the usual care group (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.60-1.26). Diagnosis of AF was 5% in the screening group and 3.3% in the usual care group, and initiation of oral anticoagulation after randomization was 4.2% and 2.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, there was no evidence that screening for AF using a 14-day continuous electrocardiographic monitor in people ≥70 years of age seen in primary care practice reduces stroke hospitalizations. Event rates were low, however, and the trial did not enroll the planned sample size.(Reducing Stroke by Screening for Undiagnosed Atrial Fibrillation in Elderly Individuals [GUARD-AF]; NCT04126486).

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Metformin was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1995 subject to the conduct of a randomized trial to evaluate the risk of lactic acidosis or other serious adverse events (SAEs) with this agent, under usual care conditions. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The Comparative Outcomes Study of Metformin Intervention versus Conventional (COSMIC) Approach Study was a randomized, open-label, active-comparator, parallel-group, 1-year trial in type 2 diabetic patients suboptimally controlled on diet or sulfonylurea. Patients received metformin (n = 7,227) or other usual care treatments (n = 1,505). The primary end point was the incidence of SAEs, death, and hospitalization. RESULTS: SAEs occurred in 10.3% (95% CI 9.6-11.1%) of the metformin group and in 11.0% (9.5-12.7%) of the usual care group (P = 0.431). Lactic acidosis did not occur. All-cause mortality (1.1% [0.9-1.4%] vs. 1.3% [0.8-2.0%], P = 0.596) and hospitalization (9.4% [8.8-10.1%] vs. 10.4% [8.9-12.1%], P = 0.229) were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of SAEs was similar between groups. Lactic acidosis was not observed. Metformin may be safely prescribed for type 2 diabetes if contraindications and warnings are respected. This study demonstrates the utility of large, simple trials for risk evaluation of treatments for common diseases.

Asunto(s)

Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamiento farmacológico , Metformina/uso terapéutico , Acidosis Láctica/epidemiología , Acidosis Láctica/prevención & control , Anciano , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/mortalidad , Femenino , Humanos , Hipoglucemiantes/administración & dosificación , Hipoglucemiantes/efectos adversos , Hipoglucemiantes/uso terapéutico , Masculino , Metformina/administración & dosificación , Metformina/efectos adversos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Compuestos de Sulfonilurea/efectos adversos , Compuestos de Sulfonilurea/uso terapéutico , Análisis de Supervivencia

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Metformin, a biguanide antihyperglycemic medication, lowers blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes with minimal risk of hypoglycemia. Most common side effects include diarrhea, nausea and vomiting. Extended-release metformin (Glucophage XR)*, a once-daily tablet using the patented GelShield Diffusion System release mechanism, may be better tolerated than immediate-release metformin (Glucophage). This retrospective chart review examined the overall gastrointestinal (GI) tolerability of both formulations. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patient charts were reviewed and data were collected from October 2001 to May 2002. Adult patients with type 2 diabetes started on extended-release metformin (metformin-XR) or switched from immediate-release metformin to metformin-XR within the previous 2 years were eligible for inclusion in the metformin-XR cohort. Patients started on immediate-release metformin within the previous 2 years were eligible for inclusion in the immediate-release metformin cohort. Previous experience of GI side effects while taking immediate-release metformin did not prevent inclusion in either cohort, though patients with significant underlying GI disease or moderate to severe hepatic or renal impairment were excluded. GI tolerability was assessed during the first year of treatment with immediate-release metformin or metformin-XR. Primary endpoints were overall GI tolerability and frequency of diarrhea during the first year of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 471 patients' charts were reviewed and data were collected from four diabetes clinics; 310 (metformin-XR) and 158 (immediate-release metformin) eligible patients were included. Patients were, on average, 56 years old, and overweight (mean body mass index 33 kg/m2). The majority of patients were Caucasian (50%), Hispanic (24%) or Black (19%). Mean daily doses were 1258 mg (range 500-2500 mg) for metformin-XR and 1282 mg (range 500-2550 mg) for immediate-release metformin. About 25% of the metformin-XR cohort had been switched from immediate-release metformin due to a history of GI adverse events (AE). Despite this, the frequency of any GI AE was similar between metformin-XR and immediate release metformin (11.94 vs. 11.39%, p = 0.86). The incidence of individual GI AE also did not differ significantly between cohorts. In a cohort of 205 patients started on immediate-release metformin and switched to metformin-XR, the frequency of any GI AE was 26.34% (while taking immediate release metformin; n = 205) vs. 11.71% (after switching to metformin-XR; n = 205) (p = 0.0006) and the frequency of diarrhea was 18.05% (while taking immediate-release metformin) vs. 8.29% (after switching to metformin-XR) (p = 0.0084). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective chart review, patients switched from immediate-release metformin to metformin-XR experienced fewer GI side effects on comparable doses of the extended-release metformin.

Asunto(s)

Enfermedades Gastrointestinales/inducido químicamente , Hipoglucemiantes/efectos adversos , Metformina/efectos adversos , Administración Oral , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Estudios de Cohortes , Preparaciones de Acción Retardada , Femenino , Humanos , Hipoglucemiantes/administración & dosificación , Masculino , Metformina/administración & dosificación , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Comprimidos

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Cough frequency and severity with fosinopril and enalapril were assessed in hypertensive patients with previous angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)-associated cough. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, randomized, 8-week double-blind treatment. PATIENTS: One hundred seventy-nine patients (mild-to-moderate hypertension, nonsmokers, mean age 58 years; 55% females; 72% Caucasian, 6% black, 19% Hispanic) were studied. Patients with other cough etiologies, significant co-morbidity, or confounding medications were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to fosinopril 10 mg (n = 85) or enalapril 5 mg (n = 94) once daily. Dosage could be doubled for blood pressure control after 4 weeks. Outcome measurements: The primary end point was all-cough frequency based on patient daily diary ratings; a cumulative cough frequency score was calculated. Secondary end points included cough severity, nonproductive cough frequency, night awakenings, cough time of day, and spontaneously reported cough. RESULTS: Fosinopril and enalapril demonstrated similar blood pressure control. Significant cough profile differences were observed in favor of fosinopril: all-cough frequency was 40.6 plus minus 3.8 (mean plus minus SE) versus 52.8 plus minus 3.6 (p = 0.02); nonproductive cough frequency was 26.7 plus minus 3.5 versus 40.3 plus minus 3.4 (p less-than-or-equal 0.01); and cough time of day was 49.2 plus minus 5.2 versus 66.0 plus minus 5.0 (p = 0.02), for fosinopril and enalapril, respectively. Subgroup analysis revealed all-cough frequency was 33.5 plus minus 6.3 versus 56.6 plus minus 5.3 (p = 0.006) for fosinopril and enalapril, respectively, in patients who previously had cough on one of these two ACEI (predominantly enalapril). Ten (12%) fosinopril and 25 (27%) enelapril patients spontaneously reported cough (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Hypertensive patients with previous ACEI-associated cough reported less frequent cough with fosinopril compared to enalapril, based on cumulative patient diary scores and spontaneously reported cough. This difference was most apparent in the subgroup of patients who previously experienced cough associated with enalapril therapy. Patients with prior ACEI-associated cough may experience less frequent with fosinopril.