Approximately 10% of ischemic strokes are associated with atrial fibrillation (AF) first diagnosed at the time of stroke. Detecting asymptomatic AF would provide an opportunity to prevent these strokes by instituting appropriate anticoagulation. The AF-SCREEN international collaboration was formed in September 2015 to promote discussion and research about AF screening as a strategy to reduce stroke and death and to provide advocacy for implementation of country-specific AF screening programs. During 2016, 60 expert members of AF-SCREEN, including physicians, nurses, allied health professionals, health economists, and patient advocates, were invited to prepare sections of a draft document. In August 2016, 51 members met in Rome to discuss the draft document and consider the key points arising from it using a Delphi process. These key points emphasize that screen-detected AF found at a single timepoint or by intermittent ECG recordings over 2 weeks is not a benign condition and, with additional stroke factors, carries sufficient risk of stroke to justify consideration of anticoagulation. With regard to the methods of mass screening, handheld ECG devices have the advantage of providing a verifiable ECG trace that guidelines require for AF diagnosis and would therefore be preferred as screening tools. Certain patient groups, such as those with recent embolic stroke of uncertain source (ESUS), require more intensive monitoring for AF. Settings for screening include various venues in both the community and the clinic, but they must be linked to a pathway for appropriate diagnosis and management for screening to be effective. It is recognized that health resources vary widely between countries and health systems, so the setting for AF screening should be both country- and health system-specific. Based on current knowledge, this white paper provides a strong case for AF screening now while recognizing that large randomized outcomes studies would be helpful to strengthen the evidence base.

Concurrent therapy with a proton-pump inhibitor is a standard treatment for patients receiving aspirin who are at risk for ulcer. Current U.S. guidelines also recommend clopidrogel for patients who have major gastrointestinal intolerance of aspirin. We compared clopidogrel with aspirin plus esomeprazole for the prevention of recurrent bleeding from ulcers in high-risk patients. We studied patients who took aspirin to prevent vascular diseases and who presented with ulcer bleeding. After the ulcers had healed, we randomly assigned patients who were negative for Helicobacter pylori to receive either 75 mg of clopidogrel daily plus esomeprazole placebo twice daily or 80 mg of aspirin daily plus 20 mg of esomeprazole twice daily for 12 months. The end point was recurrent ulcer bleeding. We enrolled 320 patients (161 patients assigned to receive clopidogrel and 159 to receive aspirin plus esomeprazole). Recurrent ulcer bleeding occurred in 13 patients receiving clopidogrel and 1 receiving aspirin plus esomeprazole. The cumulative incidence of recurrent bleeding during the 12-month period was 8.6 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 4.1 to 13.1 percent) among patients who received clopidogrel and 0.7 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 0 to 2.0 percent) among those who received aspirin plus esomeprazole (difference, 7.9 percentage points; 95 percent confidence interval for the difference, 3.4 to 12.4; P=0.001). Among patients with a history of aspirin-induced ulcer bleeding whose ulcers had healed before they received the study treatment, aspirin plus esomeprazole was superior to clopidogrel in the prevention of recurrent ulcer bleeding. Our finding does not support the current recommendation that patients with major gastrointestinal intolerance of aspirin be given clopidogrel.

A neutral gastric pH is critical for the stability of clots over bleeding arteries. We investigated the effect of preemptive infusion of omeprazole before endoscopy on the need for endoscopic therapy. Consecutive patients admitted with upper gastrointestinal bleeding underwent stabilization and were then randomly assigned to receive either omeprazole or placebo (each as an 80-mg intravenous bolus followed by an 8-mg infusion per hour) before endoscopy the next morning. Over a 17-month period, 638 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to omeprazole or placebo (319 in each group). The need for endoscopic treatment was lower in the omeprazole group than in the placebo group (60 of the 314 patients included in the analysis [19.1%] vs. 90 of 317 patients [28.4%], P=0.007). There were no significant differences between the omeprazole group and the placebo group in the mean amount of blood transfused (1.54 and 1.88 units, respectively; P=0.12) or the number of patients who had recurrent bleeding (11 and 8, P=0.49), who underwent emergency surgery (3 and 4, P=1.00), or who died within 30 days (8 and 7, P=0.78). The hospital stay was less than 3 days in 60.5% of patients in the omeprazole group, as compared with 49.2% in the placebo group (P=0.005). On endoscopy, fewer patients in the omeprazole group had actively bleeding ulcers (12 of 187, vs. 28 of 190 in the placebo group; P=0.01) and more omeprazole-treated patients had ulcers with clean bases (120 vs. 90, P=0.001). Infusion of high-dose omeprazole before endoscopy accelerated the resolution of signs of bleeding in ulcers and reduced the need for endoscopic therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00164866.)

Increased blood pressure is the biggest contributor to the global burden of disease and mortality. Data suggest that less than half of the population with hypertension is aware of it. May Measurement Month was initiated to raise awareness of the importance of blood pressure and as a pragmatic interim solution to the shortfall in screening programmes. This cross-sectional survey included volunteer adults (≥18 years) who ideally had not had their blood pressures measured in the past year. Each participant had their blood pressure measured three times and received a a questionnaire about demographic, lifestyle, and environmental factors. The primary objective was to raise awareness of blood pressure, measured by number of countries involved, number of people screened, and number of people who have untreated or inadequately treated hypertension (defined as systolic blood pressure ≥140 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≥90 mm Hg, or both, or on the basis of receiving antihypertensive medication). Multiple imputation was used to estimate the mean of the second and third blood pressure readings if these were not recorded. Measures of association were analysed using linear mixed models. Data were collected from 1 201 570 individuals in 80 countries. After imputation, of the 1 128 635 individuals for whom a mean of the second and third readings was available, 393 924 (34·9%) individuals had hypertension. 153 905 (17·3%) of 888 616 individuals who were not receiving antihypertensive treatment were hypertensive, and 105 456 (46·3%) of the 227 721 individuals receiving treatment did not have controlled blood pressure. Significant differences in adjusted blood pressures and hypertension prevalence were apparent between regions. Adjusted blood pressure was higher in association with antihypertensive medication, diabetes, cerebrovascular disease, smoking, and alcohol consumption. Blood pressure was higher when measured on the right arm than on the left arm, and blood pressure was highest on Saturdays. Inexpensive global screening of blood pressure is achievable using volunteers and convenience sampling. Pending the set-up of systematic surveillance systems worldwide, MMM will be repeated annually to raise awareness of blood pressure. International Society of Hypertension, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Servier Pharmaceutical Co.