aged

Background: Carotid revascularisation, comprising either carotid endarterectomy or stenting, is offered to patients with carotid stenosis to prevent stroke based on the results of randomised trials conducted more than 30 years ago. Since then, medical therapy for stroke prevention has improved. We aimed to assess whether patients with asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid stenosis with a low or intermediate predicted risk of stroke, who received optimised medical therapy (OMT), would benefit from additional revascularisation.

Methods: The Second European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST-2) is a multicentre randomised trial with blinded outcome adjudication, which was conducted at 30 centres with stroke and carotid revascularisation expertise in Europe and Canada. Patients aged 18 years or older with asymptomatic or symptomatic carotid stenosis of 50% or greater, and a 5-year predicted risk of ipsilateral stroke of less than 20% (estimated using the Carotid Artery Risk [CAR] score), were recruited. Patients were randomly assigned to either OMT alone or OMT plus revascularisation (1:1) using a web-based system. The primary outcome for this 2-year, interim analysis was a hierarchical outcome composite of: (1) periprocedural death, fatal stroke, or fatal myocardial infarction; (2) non-fatal stroke; (3) non-fatal myocardial infarction; or (4) new silent cerebral infarction on imaging. Analysis was by intention-to-treat using the win ratio-ie, each patient in the OMT alone group was compared as a pair with each patient in the OMT plus revascularisation group, with a win declared for the patient with a better outcome within the pair (a tie was declared if neither patient in the pair had a better outcome). The win ratio was calculated as the number of wins in the OMT alone group divided by the number of wins in the OMT plus revascularisation group. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN97744893) and is ongoing.

Findings: Between March 1, 2012, and Oct 31, 2019, 429 patients were randomly assigned to OMT alone (n=215) or OMT plus revascularisation (n=214). One patient allocated to OMT alone withdrew consent within 48 h and was not considered further. The median age of patients was 72 years (IQR 65-78); 296 (69%) were male and 133 (31%) female. No benefit was recorded in favour of either treatment group with respect to the primary hierarchical outcome assessed 2 years after randomisation, with 5228 (11·4%) wins for the OMT alone group, 5173 (11·3%) wins for the OMT plus revascularisation group, and 35 395 (77·3%) ties between groups (win ratio 1·01 [95% CI 0·60-1·70]; p=0·97). For OMT alone versus OMT plus revascularisation, four versus three patients had periprocedural death, fatal stroke, or fatal myocardial infarction; 11 versus 16 had non-fatal stroke; seven versus five had non-fatal myocardial infarction; and 12 versus seven had new silent cerebral infarction on imaging. One periprocedural death occurred in the OMT plus revascularisation group, which was attributed to decompensated aortic stenosis 1 week after carotid endarterectomy.

Interpretation: No evidence for a benefit of revascularisation in addition to OMT was found in the first 2 years following treatment for patients with asymptomatic or symptomatic carotid stenosis of 50% or greater with a low or intermediate predicted stroke risk (assessed by the CAR score). The results support treating patients with asymptomatic and low or intermediate risk symptomatic carotid stenosis with OMT alone until further data from the 5-year analysis of ECST-2 and other trials become available.

Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research; Stroke Association; Swiss National Science Foundation; Dutch Organisation for Knowledge and Innovation in Health, Healthcare and Well-Being; Leeds Neurology Foundation.

Importance Active monitoring for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast has been proposed as an alternative to guideline-concordant care, but the safety of this approach is unknown.

Objective To compare rates of invasive cancer in patients with low-risk DCIS receiving active monitoring vs guideline-concordant care.

Design, Setting, and Participants Prospective, randomized noninferiority trial enrolling 995 women aged 40 years or older with a new diagnosis of hormone receptor–positive grade 1 or grade 2 DCIS without invasive cancer at 100 US Alliance Cancer Cooperative Group clinical trial sites from 2017 to 2023.

Interventions Participants were randomized to receive active monitoring (follow-up every 6 months with breast imaging and physical examination; n = 484) or guideline-concordant care (surgery with or without radiation therapy; n = 473).

Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was 2-year cumulative risk of ipsilateral invasive cancer diagnosis, according to planned intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses, with a noninferiority bound of 5%.

Results The median age of the 957 participants analyzed was 63.6 (95% CI, 55.5-70.5) years in the guideline-concordant care group and 63.7 (95% CI, 60.0-71.6) years in the active monitoring group. Overall, 15.7% of participants were Black and 75.0% were White. In this prespecified primary analysis, median follow-up was 36.9 months; 346 patients had surgery for DCIS, 264 in the guideline-concordant care group and 82 in the active monitoring group. Forty-six women were diagnosed with invasive cancer, 19 in the active monitoring group and 27 in the guideline-concordant care group. The 2-year Kaplan-Meier cumulative rate of ipsilateral invasive cancer was 4.2% in the active monitoring group vs 5.9% in the guideline-concordant care group, a difference of −1.7% (upper limit of the 95% CI, 0.95%), indicating that active monitoring is not inferior to guideline-concordant care. Invasive tumor characteristics did not differ significantly between groups.

Conclusions and Relevance Women with low-risk DCIS randomized to active monitoring did not have a higher rate of invasive cancer in the same breast at 2 years compared with those randomized to guideline-concordant care.

Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02926911

Background: A prescribing cascade occurs when medication causes an adverse drug reaction (ADR) that leads to the prescription of additional medication. Prescribing cascades can cause excess medication burden, which is of particular concern in older adults. This study aims to identify and quantify potentially problematic prescribing cascades relevant for clinical practice.

Methods: A mixed-methods study was conducted. First, prescribing cascades were identified through literature search. An expert panel (n = 16) of pharmacists and physicians assessed whether these prescribing cascades were potentially problematic. Next, a cohort study quantified potentially problematic prescribing cascades in adults using Dutch community pharmacy data for the period 2015-2020. Additionally, the influence of multiple medications potentially causing the same ADR was evaluated. Prescription sequence symmetry analysis was used to calculate adjusted sequence ratios (aSRs), adjusting for temporal prescribing trends. An aSR >1.0 indicates the occurrence of a prescribing cascade. In a subgroup analysis, aSRs were calculated for older adults.

Results: Seventy-six prescribing cascades were identified in literature and three were provided by experts. Of these, 66 (83.5%) were considered potentially problematic. A significant positive aSR for the medication sequence was found for 41 (62.1%) of these prescribing cascades. The highest aSR was found for amiodarone potentially causing hypothyroidism treated with thyroid hormones (4.63 [95% confidence interval 4.40-4.85]), based on 565 incident users. The biggest population (n = 34,645) was found for angiotensin converting enzyme-inhibitors potentially causing urinary tract infections treated with antibiotics. Regarding four potential ADRs, the aSRs were higher for people using multiple medications that cause the same ADR as compared to people using only one of those medications. Among older adults the aSRs remained significant for 37 prescribing cascades.

Conclusion: An overview was generated of potentially problematic prescribing cascades relevant for clinical practice. These results can support healthcare providers to intervene and reduce medication burden for older adults.

The Clinician’s Guide to Assessing and Counseling Older Drivers, 4th Edition is published by the American Geriatrics Society (AGS) as a service to healthcare providers involved in the care of older adults. This 4th edition is an update of the 3rd edition to the current state of the literature, with a continued focus on the interprofessional nature of the team caring for an older adult driver. This edition is the result of a cooperative agreement between AGS and the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

The Clinician’s Guide is available in two formats, a digital text accessed through your browser and a downloadable PDF.