Elliott M. Antman

Bio: Elliott M. Antman is an academic researcher from Brigham and Women's Hospital. The author has contributed to research in topics: Myocardial infarction & TIMI. The author has an hindex of 161, co-authored 716 publications receiving 179462 citations. Previous affiliations of Elliott M. Antman include Duke University & Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.

Clinical outcomes, edoxaban concentration, and anti-factor Xa activity of Asian patients with atrial fibrillation compared with non-Asians in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial

Abstract: Aims Prior studies suggested that the risks of ischaemic stroke and bleeding in patients of Asian race with atrial fibrillation (AF) may be higher than that of non-Asians. In the analysis of ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial, we compared clinical outcomes, edoxaban concentration, and anti-factor Xa (anti-FXa) activity, between Asian and non-Asian races. Methods and results There were 2909 patients of Asian race and 18 195 non-Asian race in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial. The risks of thromboembolism and bleeding events were compared for Asians and non-Asians treated with warfarin. The trough levels of edoxaban concentration and anti-FXa activity were also compared and correlated with the efficacy and safety of edoxaban vs. warfarin. Compared to non-Asian patients, the Asian population was on average 2 years younger and 20 kg lighter. In the warfarin group, the adjusted risk of ischaemic stroke did not differ significantly for patients of Asian and non-Asian race [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 1.12, P = 0.56). Asians treated with warfarin had a higher-adjusted risk of intracranial haemorrhage (ICH: aHR 1.71, P = 0.03) compared with non-Asians. The trough edoxaban concentration and anti-FXa activity were 20-25% lower for Asians compared with non-Asians. Compared to warfarin, higher dose edoxaban significantly reduced ICH while preserving the efficacy of stroke prevention in both Asians and non-Asians. Two of three net clinical outcomes appeared to be more favourably reduced with edoxaban in Asians compared with non-Asians (Pint = 0.063 for primary, 0.037 for secondary, and 0.032 for third net clinical outcomes, respectively). Conclusion Compared to warfarin, higher dose edoxaban preserved the efficacy for stroke prevention and was associated with a favourable safety profile for Asians, which may be due to the lower trough edoxaban concentration and anti-FXa activity achieved in patients of Asian race.

Abstract 12680: Efficacy and Safety of Edoxaban Compared With Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure: Insights From Engage-AF TIMI 48

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) have emerged as the two epidemics of cardiovascular (CV) disease. The prevalence of AF increases with the severity of HF and contributes to HF disability. Among patients treated with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), symptomatic HF is an independent risk factor for lower time in therapeutic range (TTR), which reduces the efficacy and safety of VKAs. METHODS: In the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial, both once-daily regimens of the direct oral factor Xa inhibitor edoxaban [high (HDE) and low dose (LDE)], were non inferior to warfarin (W) for prevention of stroke and systemic embolic events (SEE) in patients with AF and were associated with lower rates of bleeding. We evaluated the safety and the efficacy of edoxaban compared with W in patients with HF presenting with different severity of functional limitation (NYHA class). RESULTS: Among 21,105 patients enrolled 8,981(43%) had no history of HF, 9,489 (45%) had history of HF and a NYHA class I-II, whereas 2,635...

Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses

Abstract: Cochrane Reviews have recently started including the quantity I 2 to help readers assess the consistency of the results of studies in meta-analyses. What does this new quantity mean, and why is assessment of heterogeneity so important to clinical practice? Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can provide convincing and reliable evidence relevant to many aspects of medicine and health care.1 Their value is especially clear when the results of the studies they include show clinically important effects of similar magnitude. However, the conclusions are less clear when the included studies have differing results. In an attempt to establish whether studies are consistent, reports of meta-analyses commonly present a statistical test of heterogeneity. The test seeks to determine whether there are genuine differences underlying the results of the studies (heterogeneity), or whether the variation in findings is compatible with chance alone (homogeneity). However, the test is susceptible to the number of trials included in the meta-analysis. We have developed a new quantity, I 2, which we believe gives a better measure of the consistency between trials in a meta-analysis. Assessment of the consistency of effects across studies is an essential part of meta-analysis. Unless we know how consistent the results of studies are, we cannot determine the generalisability of the findings of the meta-analysis. Indeed, several hierarchical systems for grading evidence state that the results of studies must be consistent or homogeneous to obtain the highest grading.2–4 Tests for heterogeneity are commonly used to decide on methods for combining studies and for concluding consistency or inconsistency of findings.5 6 But what does the test achieve in practice, and how should the resulting P values be interpreted? A test for heterogeneity examines the null hypothesis that all studies are evaluating the same effect. The usual test statistic …

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 Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report.

Abstract: "The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure" provides a new guideline for hypertension prevention and management. The following are the key messages(1) In persons older than 50 years, systolic blood pressure (BP) of more than 140 mm Hg is a much more important cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor than diastolic BP; (2) The risk of CVD, beginning at 115/75 mm Hg, doubles with each increment of 20/10 mm Hg; individuals who are normotensive at 55 years of age have a 90% lifetime risk for developing hypertension; (3) Individuals with a systolic BP of 120 to 139 mm Hg or a diastolic BP of 80 to 89 mm Hg should be considered as prehypertensive and require health-promoting lifestyle modifications to prevent CVD; (4) Thiazide-type diuretics should be used in drug treatment for most patients with uncomplicated hypertension, either alone or combined with drugs from other classes. Certain high-risk conditions are compelling indications for the initial use of other antihypertensive drug classes (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, β-blockers, calcium channel blockers); (5) Most patients with hypertension will require 2 or more antihypertensive medications to achieve goal BP (<140/90 mm Hg, or <130/80 mm Hg for patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease); (6) If BP is more than 20/10 mm Hg above goal BP, consideration should be given to initiating therapy with 2 agents, 1 of which usually should be a thiazide-type diuretic; and (7) The most effective therapy prescribed by the most careful clinician will control hypertension only if patients are motivated. Motivation improves when patients have positive experiences with and trust in the clinician. Empathy builds trust and is a potent motivator. Finally, in presenting these guidelines, the committee recognizes that the responsible physician's judgment remains paramount.

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

Abstract: The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.