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.

No abstract

No abstract

Our study suggests that spinocerebellar ataxia (SCA) 1, SCA2, and SCA3 share a number of common biologic properties, whereas SCA6 is distinct in that its phenotype is more determined by age than by disease-related factors.

Objective: To obtain quantitative data on the progression of the most common spinocerebellar ataxias (SCAs) and identify factors that influence their progression, we initiated the EUROSCA natural history study, a multicentric longitudinal cohort study of 526 patients with SCA1, SCA2, SCA3, or SCA6. We report the results of the 1-and 2-year follow-up visits. Methods:As the primary outcome measure we used the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA, 0-40), and as a secondary measure the Inventory of Non-Ataxia Symptoms (INAS, 0-16) count. Results:The annual increase of the SARA score was greatest in SCA1 (2.18 Ϯ 0.17, mean Ϯ SE) followed by SCA3 (1.61 Ϯ 0.12) and SCA2 (1.40 Ϯ 0.11). SARA progression in SCA6 was slowest and nonlinear (first year: 0.35 Ϯ 0.34, second year: 1.44 Ϯ 0.34). Analysis of the INAS count yielded similar results. Larger expanded repeats and earlier age at onset were associated with faster SARA progression in SCA1 and SCA2. In SCA1, repeat length of the expanded allele had a similar effect on INAS progression. In SCA3, SARA progression was influenced by the disease duration at inclusion, and INAS progression was faster in females.