Search

Aims The Non-adherence Academic Research Consortium (NARC) has recently developed a consensus-based standardized classification for medication non-adherence in cardiovascular clinical trials. We aimed to assess the prevalence of NARC-defined self-reported non-adherence to P2Y12 inhibitors and its impact on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods and results Using a standardized questionnaire administered at 1 year after PCI, we assessed the 4 NARC-defined non-adherence levels including type, decision-maker, reasons, and timing within the Bern PCI registry. The primary endpoint was the patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE) defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and any revascularization at 1 year. The recommended P2Y12 inhibitor duration was 12 months. Among 3,896 patients, P2Y12 inhibitor non-adherence was observed in 647 (17%) patients. Discontinuation was permanent in the majority of patients (84%). The decision was mainly driven by a physician (94%), and rarely by patients (6%). The most frequent reason was risk profile change (43%), followed by unlisted reasons (25%), surgery (17%), and adverse events (14%). Non-adherence occurred early (180 days) in 33%. The majority of POCE events (n = 421/502, 84%) occurred during adherence to the prescribed P2Y12 inhibitor. Permanent discontinuation, doctor-driven non-adherence, and risk profile change emerged as independent predictors for POCE. Conclusions In real-world PCI population treated with 1-year DAPT, non-adherence was observed in nearly one-fifth of patients. Non-adherence to P2Y12 inhibitors was associated with worse clinical outcomes, while the risk was related to underlying contexts. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02241291.

BACKGROUND: Images are important for conveying information, but there is no empirical evidence on whether imaging figures are properly selected and presented in the published medical literature. We therefore evaluated the selection and presentation of radiological imaging figures in major medical journals. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We analyzed articles published in 2005 in 12 major general and specialty medical journals that had radiological imaging figures. For each figure, we recorded information on selection, study population, provision of quantitative measurements, color scales and contrast use. Overall, 417 images from 212 articles were analyzed. Any comment/hint on image selection was made in 44 (11%) images (range 0-50% across the 12 journals) and another 37 (9%) (range 0-60%) showed both a normal and abnormal appearance. In 108 images (26%) (range 0-43%) it was unclear whether the image came from the presented study population. Eighty-three images (20%) (range 0-60%) had any quantitative or ordered categorical value on a measure of interest. Information on the distribution of the measure of interest in the study population was given in 59 cases. For 43 images (range 0-40%), a quantitative measurement was provided for the depicted case and the distribution of values in the study population was also available; in those 43 cases there was no over-representation of extreme than average cases (p = 0.37). SIGNIFICANCE: The selection and presentation of images in the medical literature is often insufficiently documented; quantitative data are sparse and difficult to place in context.