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.

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. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00041938.

Background The relationship between lifetime physical activity and the risk of developing peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is not known. Methods We studied 1381 patients referred for elective coronary angiography in a point prevalence analysis. PAD was defined as ankle-brachial index (ABI) < 0.9 at the time or a history of revascularization of the lower extremities regardless of ABI measure. We used a validated physical activity questionnaire to retrospectively measure each patient's lifetime recreational activity (LRA). Multivariate and logistic regression analyses were used to assess the independent association of LRA to ABI and the presence of PAD. Results PAD was present in 19% (n=258) of all subjects. Subjects reporting no regular LRA had greater diastolic BP and were more likely to be female. They had lower average ABI, and a higher proportion had PAD (25.6%). In a regression model including traditional risk factors and LRA, multivariate analysis showed that age (p <0.001), female gender (p <0.001), systolic blood pressure (p =0.014), fasting glucose (p <0.001), serum triglycerides (p =0.02) and cumulative pack years (p <0.001) were independent negative predictors of ABI, and LRA was a positive predictor of ABI (p <0.001). History of sedentary lifestyle independently increased the odds ratio for PAD (OR =1.46; 95% CI, 1.0112.103) when assessed by logistic regression. Intriguingly, there is a correlation between physical activity and gender, such that women with low lifetime recreational activity are at greatest risk. Conclusion Recalled lifetime recreational activity is positively correlated to ABI and associated with PAD. Whereas the mechanism for this effect is not clear, LRA may be a useful clinical screening tool for PAD risk and strategies to increase adult recreational activity may reduce the burden of PAD later in life.

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.

Eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), formerly Churg-Strauss, is an anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated autoimmune vasculitis, involving small- and medium-sized arteries, which could involve several organs. This rare syndrome can present with a myriad of symptoms, which may make diagnosis challenging. It has been suggested that there are variants of EGPA, which may respond differently to available modes of treatment. Multiple and different mechanisms may be at play in each case of EGPA. This may influence the decision of clinicians to combine treatment strategies as done in this case. The addition of immunosuppressive agents other than high-dose steroids may mitigate end-organ damage, facilitate faster recovery, and prevent relapse. Rituximab among others has been seen to provide better outcomes, including a lower incidence of relapse. Mepolizumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2017 for the treatment of EGPA. Administered at a higher dose than approved for severe eosinophilic asthma, it has been shown to lengthen remission in EGPA. The optimal dose and duration of therapy with mepolizumab remain unclear. The rarity alone of EGPA creates room for further investigation regarding pathogenesis, outcome over time, and treatment strategies, which may vary depending on how an individual case presents. This case describes the course of a 55-year-old woman who presented with respiratory symptoms, pauci-immune necrotizing granulomatous nephropathy, and neuropathy secondary to P-ANCA-positive EGPA who was successfully treated with rituximab and mepolizumab, in addition to glucocorticoids.