Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

John L P Thompson

Publications and source records attributed to John L P Thompson.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

Warfarin versus aspirin in patients with reduced cardiac ejection fraction (WARCEF): rationale, objectives, and design.

BACKGROUND: Warfarin is widely prescribed for patients with heart failure without level 1 evidence, and an adequately powered randomized study is needed. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction study is a National Institutes of Health-funded, randomized, double-blind clinical trial with a target enrollment of 2860 patients. It is designed to test with 90% power the 2-sided primary null hypothesis of no difference between warfarin (International Normalized Ratio 2.5-3) and aspirin (325 mg) in 3- to 5-year event-free survival for the composite endpoint of death, or stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) among patients with cardiac ejection fraction < or =35% who do not have atrial fibrillation or mechanical prosthetic heart valves. Secondary analyses will compare warfarin and aspirin for reduction of all-cause mortality, ischemic stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI), balanced against the risk of intracerebral hemorrhage, among women and African Americans; and compare warfarin and aspirin for prevention of stroke alone. Randomization is stratified by site, New York Heart Association (NYHA) heart class (I vs II-IV), and stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) within 1 year before randomization versus no stroke or TIA in that period. NYHA class I patients will not exceed 20%, and the study has a target of 20% (or more) patients with stroke or TIA within 12 months. Randomized patients receive active warfarin plus placebo or active aspirin plus placebo, double-blind. CONCLUSION: The results should help guide the selection of optimum antithrombotic therapy for patients with left ventricular dysfunction.

Anticoagulants↗

Gavestinel does not improve outcome after acute intracerebral hemorrhage: an analysis from the GAIN International and GAIN Americas studies.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Glycine Antagonist in Neuroprotection (GAIN) International and GAIN Americas trials were prospectively designed, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of gavestinel, a glycine-site antagonist and putative neuroprotectant drug administered within 6 hours of suspected ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. Both trials reported that gavestinel was ineffective in ischemic stroke. This analysis reports the results in those with primary intracerebral hemorrhage. METHODS: The primary hypothesis was that gavestinel treatment did not alter outcome, measured at 3 months by the Barthel Index (BI), from acute intracerebral hemorrhage, based on pooled results from both trials. The BI scores were divided into 3 groups: 95 to 100 (independent), 60 to 90 (assisted independence), and 0 to 55 (dependent) or dead. RESULTS: In total, 3450 patients were randomized in GAIN International (N=1804) and GAIN Americas (N=1646). Of these, 571 were ultimately identified to have spontaneous intracerebral hematoma on baseline head computerized tomography scan. The difference in distribution of trichotomized BI scores at 3 months between gavestinel and placebo was not statistically significant (P=0.09). Serious adverse events were reported at similar rates in the 2 treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: These observations from the combined GAIN International and GAIN Americas trials suggest that gavestinel is not of substantial benefit or harm to patients with primary intracerebral hemorrhage. These findings are similar to results previously reported in patients with ischemic stroke.

Acute Disease↗