Benefit of warfarin compared with aspirin in patients with heart failure in sinus rhythm: a subgroup analysis of WARCEF, a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction (WARCEF) trial found no difference in the primary outcome between warfarin and aspirin in 2305 patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction in sinus rhythm. However, it is unknown whether any subgroups benefit from warfarin or aspirin. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used a Cox model stepwise selection procedure to identify subgroups that may benefit from warfarin or aspirin on the WARCEF primary outcome. A secondary analysis added major hemorrhage to the outcome. The primary efficacy outcome was time to the first to occur of ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or death. Only age group was a significant treatment effect modifier (P for interaction, 0.003). Younger patients benefited from warfarin over aspirin on the primary outcome (4.81 versus 6.76 events per 100 patient-years: hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.84; P=0.001). In older patients, therapies did not differ (9.91 versus 9.01 events per 100 patient-years: hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.35; P=0.44). With major hemorrhage added, in younger patients the event rate remained lower for warfarin than aspirin (5.41 versus 7.25 per 100 patient-years: hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.89; P=0.005), but in older patients it became significantly higher for warfarin (11.80 versus 9.35 per 100 patient-years: hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.53; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In patients <60 years, warfarin improved outcomes over aspirin with or without inclusion of major hemorrhage. In patients ≥60 years, there was no treatment difference, but the aspirin group had significantly better outcomes when major hemorrhage was included.

Warfarin and aspirin in patients with heart failure and sinus rhythm.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether warfarin or aspirin therapy is superior for patients with heart failure who are in sinus rhythm. METHODS: We designed this trial to determine whether warfarin (with a target international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.5) or aspirin (at a dose of 325 mg per day) is a better treatment for patients in sinus rhythm who have a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We followed 2305 patients for up to 6 years (mean [±SD], 3.5±1.8). The primary outcome was the time to the first event in a composite end point of ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or death from any cause. RESULTS: The rates of the primary outcome were 7.47 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group and 7.93 in the aspirin group (hazard ratio with warfarin, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.10; P=0.40). Thus, there was no significant overall difference between the two treatments. In a time-varying analysis, the hazard ratio changed over time, slightly favoring warfarin over aspirin by the fourth year of follow-up, but this finding was only marginally significant (P=0.046). Warfarin, as compared with aspirin, was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of ischemic stroke throughout the follow-up period (0.72 events per 100 patient-years vs. 1.36 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82; P=0.005). The rate of major hemorrhage was 1.78 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group as compared with 0.87 in the aspirin group (P<0.001). The rates of intracerebral and intracranial hemorrhage did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (0.27 events per 100 patient-years with warfarin and 0.22 with aspirin, P=0.82). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with reduced LVEF who were in sinus rhythm, there was no significant overall difference in the primary outcome between treatment with warfarin and treatment with aspirin. A reduced risk of ischemic stroke with warfarin was offset by an increased risk of major hemorrhage. The choice between warfarin and aspirin should be individualized. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; WARCEF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00041938.).

Evaluation of task shifting in community-based DOTS program as an effective control strategy for tuberculosis.

Tuberculosis (TB) remains to be the most prevalent and debilitating pulmonary (PTB) infection in the world today, affecting about one-third of the world's population. TB is an endemic disease in many developing countries, and efforts at eliminating the disease remain futile. While the course of the disease is indolent with years of latency, the reactivation of the disease can pose serious pulmonary and systemic infections that compromise multiple organ functions which lead to respiratory failure or end-organ damage. Despite attempts to control and eradicate the mycobacterium, the prevalence of the disease remains high due to increasing population rate, persistence of poverty and poor health care, treatment failure, increasing multidrug resistance as a consequence of treatment failure and poor compliance, and existence of comorbid conditions that compromise immune response. Limited government resources to screen and monitor disease progression of TB in third world countries hamper the eradication of the disease. In response, we have evaluated the efficiency and effectivity of a Community-Based Directly Observed Treatment, Short-Course (CB-DOTS), which is an equally effective alternative strategy to health center DOTS.

Data retention after a patient withdraws consent in clinical trials.

Patient retention is critically important in the conduct of a successful clinical trial. The power in numbers in multicenter trials is dependent on the completion of follow-up for every patient randomized. If at the end of a clinical trial, a significant number of randomized patients are missing outcome data, there will not be enough pool for data analyses to conclude a study based on its primary and secondary objectives. When patients who are either lost to follow-up or who withdraw consent during the clinical trial are eliminated from the data pool, they subsequently affect the power and the validity of conclusions derived from the clinical study. This paper aims to present current guidance on data retention for patients who have withdrawn consent from clinical trials.