Alvaro Avezum

Bio: Alvaro Avezum is an academic researcher from University of South Africa. The author has contributed to research in topics: Myocardial infarction & Medicine. The author has an hindex of 93, co-authored 279 publications receiving 48888 citations. Previous affiliations of Alvaro Avezum include University of São Paulo & University of British Columbia.

Apixaban versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

Abstract: A b s t r ac t Background Vitamin K antagonists are highly effective in preventing stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation but have several limitations. Apixaban is a novel oral direct factor Xa inhibitor that has been shown to reduce the risk of stroke in a similar population in comparison with aspirin. Methods In this randomized, double-blind trial, we compared apixaban (at a dose of 5 mg twice daily) with warfarin (target international normalized ratio, 2.0 to 3.0) in 18,201 patients with atrial fibrillation and at least one additional risk factor for stroke. The primary outcome was ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke or systemic em - bolism. The trial was designed to test for noninferiority, with key secondary objec - tives of testing for superiority with respect to the primary outcome and to the rates of major bleeding and death from any cause. Results The median duration of follow-up was 1.8 years. The rate of the primary outcome was 1.27% per year in the apixaban group, as compared with 1.60% per year in the war - farin group (hazard ratio with apixaban, 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.66 to 0.95; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P = 0.01 for superiority). The rate of major bleeding was 2.13% per year in the apixaban group, as compared with 3.09% per year in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.80; P<0.001), and the rates of death from any cause were 3.52% and 3.94%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.99; P = 0.047). The rate of hemorrhagic stroke was 0.24% per year in the apixaban group, as compared with 0.47% per year in the warfarin group (hazard ra - tio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.75; P<0.001), and the rate of ischemic or uncertain type of stroke was 0.97% per year in the apixaban group and 1.05% per year in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.13; P = 0.42). Conclusions In patients with atrial fibrillation, apixaban was superior to warfarin in preventing stroke or systemic embolism, caused less bleeding, and resulted in lower mortality. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer; ARISTOTLE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00412984.)

Apixaban in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

Abstract: A b s t r ac t Background Vitamin K antagonists have been shown to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. However, many patients are not suitable candidates for or are unwilling to receive vitamin K antagonist therapy, and these patients have a high risk of stroke. Apixaban, a novel factor Xa inhibitor, may be an alternative treatment for such patients. Methods In a double-blind study, we randomly assigned 5599 patients with atrial fibrillation who were at increased risk for stroke and for whom vitamin K antagonist therapy was unsuitable to receive apixaban (at a dose of 5 mg twice daily) or aspirin (81 to 324 mg per day), to determine whether apixaban was superior. The mean follow up period was 1.1 years. The primary outcome was the occurrence of stroke or systemic embolism. Results Before enrollment, 40% of the patients had used a vitamin K antagonist. The data and safety monitoring board recommended early termination of the study because of a clear benefit in favor of apixaban. There were 51 primary outcome events (1.6% per year) among patients assigned to apixaban and 113 (3.7% per year) among those assigned to aspirin (hazard ratio with apixaban, 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.62; P<0.001). The rates of death were 3.5% per year in the apixaban group and 4.4% per year in the aspirin group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.02; P = 0.07). There were 44 cases of major bleeding (1.4% per year) in the apixaban group and 39 (1.2% per year) in the aspirin group (hazard ratio with apixaban, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.75; P = 0.57); there were 11 cases of intracranial bleeding with apixaban and 13 with aspirin. The risk of a first hospitalization for cardiovascular causes was reduced with apixaban as compared with aspirin (12.6% per year vs. 15.9% per year, P<0.001). The treatment effects were consistent among important subgroups. Conclusions In patients with atrial fibrillation for whom vitamin K antagonist therapy was un suitable, apixaban reduced the risk of stroke or systemic embolism without signifi cantly increasing the risk of major bleeding or intracranial hemorrhage. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00496769.)

Predictors of hospital mortality in the global registry of acute coronary events.

Abstract: Background Management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) should be guided by an estimate of patient risk. Objective To develop a simple model to assess the risk for in-hospital mortality for the entire spectrum of ACS treated in general clinical practice. Methods A multivariable logistic regression model was developed using 11 389 patients (including 509 in-hospital deaths) with ACS with and without ST-segment elevation enrolled in the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) from April 1, 1999, through March 31, 2001. Validation data sets included a subsequent cohort of 3972 patients enrolled in GRACE and 12 142 in the Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries IIb (GUSTO-IIb) trial. Results The following 8 independent risk factors accounted for 89.9% of the prognostic information: age (odds ratio [OR], 1.7 per 10 years), Killip class (OR, 2.0 per class), systolic blood pressure (OR, 1.4 per 20-mm Hg decrease), ST-segment deviation (OR, 2.4), cardiac arrest during presentation (OR, 4.3), serum creatinine level (OR, 1.2 per 1-mg/dL [88.4-µmol/L] increase), positive initial cardiac enzyme findings (OR, 1.6), and heart rate (OR, 1.3 per 30-beat/min increase). The discrimination ability of the simplified model was excellent with c statistics of 0.83 in the derived database, 0.84 in the confirmation GRACE data set, and 0.79 in the GUSTO-IIb database. Conclusions Across the entire spectrum of ACS and in general clinical practice, this model provides excellent ability to assess the risk for death and can be used as a simple nomogram to estimate risk in individual patients.

Rivaroxaban with or without Aspirin in Stable Cardiovascular Disease

Abstract: BackgroundWe evaluated whether rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary cardiovascular prevention. MethodsIn 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. ResultsThe 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....

The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3)

Abstract: Importance Definitions of sepsis and septic shock were last revised in 2001. Considerable advances have since been made into the pathobiology (changes in organ function, morphology, cell biology, biochemistry, immunology, and circulation), management, and epidemiology of sepsis, suggesting the need for reexamination. Objective To evaluate and, as needed, update definitions for sepsis and septic shock. Process A task force (n = 19) with expertise in sepsis pathobiology, clinical trials, and epidemiology was convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Definitions and clinical criteria were generated through meetings, Delphi processes, analysis of electronic health record databases, and voting, followed by circulation to international professional societies, requesting peer review and endorsement (by 31 societies listed in the Acknowledgment). Key Findings From Evidence Synthesis Limitations of previous definitions included an excessive focus on inflammation, the misleading model that sepsis follows a continuum through severe sepsis to shock, and inadequate specificity and sensitivity of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria. Multiple definitions and terminologies are currently in use for sepsis, septic shock, and organ dysfunction, leading to discrepancies in reported incidence and observed mortality. The task force concluded the term severe sepsis was redundant. Recommendations Sepsis should be defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. For clinical operationalization, organ dysfunction can be represented by an increase in the Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of 2 points or more, which is associated with an in-hospital mortality greater than 10%. Septic shock should be defined as a subset of sepsis in which particularly profound circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk of mortality than with sepsis alone. Patients with septic shock can be clinically identified by a vasopressor requirement to maintain a mean arterial pressure of 65 mm Hg or greater and serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L (>18 mg/dL) in the absence of hypovolemia. This combination is associated with hospital mortality rates greater than 40%. In out-of-hospital, emergency department, or general hospital ward settings, adult patients with suspected infection can be rapidly identified as being more likely to have poor outcomes typical of sepsis if they have at least 2 of the following clinical criteria that together constitute a new bedside clinical score termed quickSOFA (qSOFA): respiratory rate of 22/min or greater, altered mentation, or systolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or less. Conclusions and Relevance These updated definitions and clinical criteria should replace previous definitions, offer greater consistency for epidemiologic studies and clinical trials, and facilitate earlier recognition and more timely management of patients with sepsis or at risk of developing sepsis.

2013 ESH/ESC Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: The Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).

Abstract: ABCD : Appropriate Blood pressure Control in Diabetes ABI : ankle–brachial index ABPM : ambulatory blood pressure monitoring ACCESS : Acute Candesartan Cilexetil Therapy in Stroke Survival ACCOMPLISH : Avoiding Cardiovascular Events in Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension ACCORD : Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes ACE : angiotensin-converting enzyme ACTIVE I : Atrial Fibrillation Clopidogrel Trial with Irbesartan for Prevention of Vascular Events ADVANCE : Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron-MR Controlled Evaluation AHEAD : Action for HEAlth in Diabetes ALLHAT : Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart ATtack ALTITUDE : ALiskiren Trial In Type 2 Diabetes Using Cardio-renal Endpoints ANTIPAF : ANgioTensin II Antagonist In Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation APOLLO : A Randomized Controlled Trial of Aliskiren in the Prevention of Major Cardiovascular Events in Elderly People ARB : angiotensin receptor blocker ARIC : Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities ARR : aldosterone renin ratio ASCOT : Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial ASCOT-LLA : Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial—Lipid Lowering Arm ASTRAL : Angioplasty and STenting for Renal Artery Lesions A-V : atrioventricular BB : beta-blocker BMI : body mass index BP : blood pressure BSA : body surface area CA : calcium antagonist CABG : coronary artery bypass graft CAPPP : CAPtopril Prevention Project CAPRAF : CAndesartan in the Prevention of Relapsing Atrial Fibrillation CHD : coronary heart disease CHHIPS : Controlling Hypertension and Hypertension Immediately Post-Stroke CKD : chronic kidney disease CKD-EPI : Chronic Kidney Disease—EPIdemiology collaboration CONVINCE : Controlled ONset Verapamil INvestigation of CV Endpoints CT : computed tomography CV : cardiovascular CVD : cardiovascular disease D : diuretic DASH : Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension DBP : diastolic blood pressure DCCT : Diabetes Control and Complications Study DIRECT : DIabetic REtinopathy Candesartan Trials DM : diabetes mellitus DPP-4 : dipeptidyl peptidase 4 EAS : European Atherosclerosis Society EASD : European Association for the Study of Diabetes ECG : electrocardiogram EF : ejection fraction eGFR : estimated glomerular filtration rate ELSA : European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis ESC : European Society of Cardiology ESH : European Society of Hypertension ESRD : end-stage renal disease EXPLOR : Amlodipine–Valsartan Combination Decreases Central Systolic Blood Pressure more Effectively than the Amlodipine–Atenolol Combination FDA : U.S. Food and Drug Administration FEVER : Felodipine EVent Reduction study GISSI-AF : Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Infarto Miocardico-Atrial Fibrillation HbA1c : glycated haemoglobin HBPM : home blood pressure monitoring HOPE : Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation HOT : Hypertension Optimal Treatment HRT : hormone replacement therapy HT : hypertension HYVET : HYpertension in the Very Elderly Trial IMT : intima-media thickness I-PRESERVE : Irbesartan in Heart Failure with Preserved Systolic Function INTERHEART : Effect of Potentially Modifiable Risk Factors associated with Myocardial Infarction in 52 Countries INVEST : INternational VErapamil SR/T Trandolapril ISH : Isolated systolic hypertension JNC : Joint National Committee JUPITER : Justification for the Use of Statins in Primary Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin LAVi : left atrial volume index LIFE : Losartan Intervention For Endpoint Reduction in Hypertensives LV : left ventricle/left ventricular LVH : left ventricular hypertrophy LVM : left ventricular mass MDRD : Modification of Diet in Renal Disease MRFIT : Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial MRI : magnetic resonance imaging NORDIL : The Nordic Diltiazem Intervention study OC : oral contraceptive OD : organ damage ONTARGET : ONgoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial PAD : peripheral artery disease PATHS : Prevention And Treatment of Hypertension Study PCI : percutaneous coronary intervention PPAR : peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor PREVEND : Prevention of REnal and Vascular ENdstage Disease PROFESS : Prevention Regimen for Effectively Avoiding Secondary Strokes PROGRESS : Perindopril Protection Against Recurrent Stroke Study PWV : pulse wave velocity QALY : Quality adjusted life years RAA : renin-angiotensin-aldosterone RAS : renin-angiotensin system RCT : randomized controlled trials RF : risk factor ROADMAP : Randomized Olmesartan And Diabetes MicroAlbuminuria Prevention SBP : systolic blood pressure SCAST : Angiotensin-Receptor Blocker Candesartan for Treatment of Acute STroke SCOPE : Study on COgnition and Prognosis in the Elderly SCORE : Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation SHEP : Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program STOP : Swedish Trials in Old Patients with Hypertension STOP-2 : The second Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension SYSTCHINA : SYSTolic Hypertension in the Elderly: Chinese trial SYSTEUR : SYSTolic Hypertension in Europe TIA : transient ischaemic attack TOHP : Trials Of Hypertension Prevention TRANSCEND : Telmisartan Randomised AssessmeNt Study in ACE iNtolerant subjects with cardiovascular Disease UKPDS : United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study VADT : Veterans' Affairs Diabetes Trial VALUE : Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation WHO : World Health Organization ### 1.1 Principles The 2013 guidelines on hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and the European Society of Cardiology …

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.