Exploring the Relationship Between Efpeglenatide Dose and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes: Insights From the AMPLITUDE-O Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the AMPLITUDE-O (Effect of Efpeglenatide on Cardiovascular Outcomes) cardiovascular outcomes trial, adding either 4 mg or 6 mg weekly of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist efpeglenatide to usual care reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in people with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk. Whether these benefits are dose related remains uncertain. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to placebo, 4 mg or 6 mg of efpeglenatide. The effect of 6 mg versus placebo and of 4 mg versus placebo on MACE (a nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular or unknown causes) and on all the secondary composite cardiovascular and kidney outcomes was assessed. A dose-response relationship was assessed using the log-rank test and χ2 statistic for trend. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 1.8 years, MACE occurred in 125 (9.2%) participants assigned to placebo, 84 (6.2%) participants assigned to 6 mg of efpeglenatide (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65 [95% CI, 0.5-0.86]; P=0.0027), and 105 (7.7%) assigned to 4 mg of efpeglenatide (HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.63-1.06]; P=0.14). Participants receiving high-dose efpeglenatide also experienced fewer secondary outcomes, including the composite of MACE, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina (HR, 0.73 for 6 mg, P=0.011; HR, 0.85 for 4 mg, P=0.17), a kidney composite outcome comprising sustained new macroalbuminuria, a ≥40% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate or renal failure (HR, 0.63 for 6 mg, P<0.0001; HR, 0.73 for 4 mg, P=0.0009), MACE or any death (HR, 0.67 for 6 mg, P=0.0021; HR, 0.81 for 4 mg, P=0.08), a kidney function outcome comprising a sustained ≥40% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate, renal failure, or death (HR, 0.61 for 6 mg, P=0.0072; HR, 0.97 for 4 mg, P=0.83), and the composite of MACE, any death, heart failure hospitalization, or the kidney function outcome (HR, 0.63 for 6 mg, P=0.0002; HR, 0.81 for 4 mg, P=0.067). A clear dose-response was noted for all primary and secondary outcomes (all P for trend ≤0.018). CONCLUSIONS: The graded salutary relationship between efpeglenatide dose and cardiovascular outcomes suggests that titrating efpeglenatide and potentially other glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists to high doses may maximize their cardiovascular and renal benefits. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03496298.

Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes with Efpeglenatide in Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Four glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists that are structurally similar to human GLP-1 have been shown to reduce the risk of adverse cardiovascular events among persons with type 2 diabetes. The effect of an exendin-based GLP-1 receptor agonist, efpeglenatide, on cardiovascular and renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes who are also at high risk for adverse cardiovascular events is uncertain. METHODS: In this randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted at 344 sites across 28 countries, we evaluated efpeglenatide in participants with type 2 diabetes and either a history of cardiovascular disease or current kidney disease (defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 25.0 to 59.9 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area) plus at least one other cardiovascular risk factor. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive weekly subcutaneous injections of efpeglenatide at a dose of 4 or 6 mg or placebo. Randomization was stratified according to use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. The primary outcome was the first major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular or undetermined causes). RESULTS: A total of 4076 participants were enrolled; 2717 were assigned to receive efpeglenatide and 1359 to receive placebo. During a median follow-up of 1.81 years, an incident MACE occurred in 189 participants (7.0%) assigned to receive efpeglenatide (3.9 events per 100 person-years) and 125 participants (9.2%) assigned to receive placebo (5.3 events per 100 person-years) (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.92; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P = 0.007 for superiority). A composite renal outcome event (a decrease in kidney function or macroalbuminuria) occurred in 353 participants (13.0%) assigned to receive efpeglenatide and in 250 participants (18.4%) assigned to receive placebo (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.79; P<0.001). Diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, or bloating occurred more frequently with efpeglenatide than with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving participants with type 2 diabetes who had either a history of cardiovascular disease or current kidney disease plus at least one other cardiovascular risk factor, the risk of cardiovascular events was lower among those who received weekly subcutaneous injections of efpeglenatide at a dose of 4 or 6 mg than among those who received placebo. (Funded by Sanofi; AMPLITUDE-O ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03496298.).

Cardiovascular and renal outcomes with varying degrees of kidney disease in high-risk people with type 2 diabetes: An epidemiological analysis of data from the AMPLITUDE-O trial.

AIMS: To estimate the incidence of a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) and a composite kidney outcome across estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) levels, and to determine whether efpeglenatide's effect varies with these indices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: AMPLITUDE-O trial data were used to estimate the relationship of eGFR, UACR, and Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) category to the hazard of MACE and the kidney composite. Interactions on these outcomes between eGFR and the UACR, and between each of these variables and efpeglenatide were also assessed. RESULTS: Baseline eGFR and UACR were available for 3983 participants (mean age 64.5 years). During a median follow-up of 1.8 years, the hazards of MACE and the kidney composite for the lowest versus highest eGFR third were 1.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2, 2.2) and 2.3 (95% CI 1.9, 2.8), respectively. The hazards for the highest versus the lowest UACR third were 2.3 (95% CI 1.8, 3.1) and 18.0 (95% CI 12.7, 25.5), respectively, and for the high- versus low-risk KDIGO categories the hazards were 2.4 (95% CI 1.8, 3.1) and 16.0 (95% CI 11.6, 22.0), respectively. eGFR and UACR were independent determinants of both outcomes, but negatively interacted with each other for the kidney outcome. Efpeglenatide's effect on both outcomes did not vary with any kidney disease measure (all interaction p values ≥0.26). CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk people with diabetes, eGFR, UACR, and KDIGO category have different relationships to incident cardiovascular and kidney outcomes. The beneficial effect of efpeglenatide on these outcomes is independent of kidney-related risk category.

Efpeglenatide and Clinical Outcomes With and Without Concomitant Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibition Use in Type 2 Diabetes: Exploratory Analysis of the AMPLITUDE-O Trial.

BACKGROUND: Both sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists reduce cardiovascular events among patients with type 2 diabetes. However, no cardiovascular outcome trial has evaluated the long-term effects of their combined use. The AMPLITUDE-O trial (Effect of Efpeglenatide on Cardiovascular Outcomes) reported that once-weekly injections of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists efpeglenatide (versus placebo) reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs); MACEs, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina hospitalization (expanded MACEs); a renal composite outcome; and MACEs or death in people with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular or renal disease. The trial uniquely stratified randomization by baseline or anticipated use of SGLT2 inhibitors and included the highest prevalence at baseline (N=618, 15.2%) of SGLT2 inhibitor use among glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist cardiovascular outcome trials to date. Its results were analyzed to estimate the combined effect of SGLT2 inhibitors and efpeglenatide on clinical outcomes. METHODS: Cardiovascular and renal outcomes were analyzed with Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for region, SGLT2 inhibitor randomization strata, and the SGLT2 inhibitor-by-treatment interaction. Continuous variables were analyzed with a mixed-effects models for repeated measures that also included an interaction term. RESULTS: The effect (hazard ratio [95% CI]) of efpeglenatide versus placebo in the absence and presence of baseline SGLT2 inhibitors on MACEs (0.74 [0.58-0.94] and 0.70 [0.37-1.30], respectively), expanded MACEs (0.77 [0.62-0.96] and 0.87 [0.51-1.48]), renal composite (0.70 [0.59-0.83] and 0.52 [0.33-0.83]), and MACEs or death (0.74 [0.59-0.93] and 0.65 [0.36-1.19]) did not differ by baseline SGLT2 inhibitor use (P for all interactions >0.2). The reduction of blood pressure, body weight, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio by efpeglenatide also appeared to be independent of concurrent SGLT2 inhibitor use (all interaction P≥0.08). Last, adverse events did not differ by baseline SGLT2 inhibitor use. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety of efpeglenatide appear to be independent of concurrent SGLT2 inhibitor use. These data support combined SGLT2 inhibitor and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist therapy in type 2 diabetes. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03496298.

Total events and net clinical benefit of rivaroxaban and aspirin in patients with chronic coronary or peripheral artery disease: The COMPASS trial.

BACKGROUND: Low dose rivaroxaban with aspirin reduced major cardiovascular events (MACE) compared to aspirin alone in patients with cardiovascular disease although effects on total events are unknown. METHODS: The COMPASS clinical trial randomized 27,395 participants with chronic coronary and/or peripheral artery disease to rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily alone, or aspirin 100 mg daily. We analyzed total (first and recurrent) MACE outcomes of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction, and the primary safety outcome of major bleeding. Exploratory analyses included on-treatment and net clinical benefit. Total MACE and safety events were modeled for each treatment. RESULTS: MACE events were lowest in rivaroxaban with aspirin (379 first MACE, 432 total MACE) compared with rivaroxaban (448 first, 508 total) or aspirin alone (496 first, 574 total). Rivaroxaban and aspirin reduced total MACE events compared with aspirin alone [HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66-0.85, P < .0001, number needed to treat for 2 years (NNT2y) of 63]. Total major bleeding was higher for rivaroxaban with aspirin compared to aspirin, but severe bleeding was not increased. The net clinical benefit of rivaroxaban plus aspirin was 20% higher compared with aspirin alone [HR 0.80 (95% CI 16.3%-31.6%)]. Rivaroxaban alone had no benefit on MACE outcomes compared with aspirin alone. MACE outcomes were similar for those on and off randomized treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Low dose rivaroxaban with aspirin significantly reduces first and total cardiovascular events compared with aspirin alone with a NNT2y of 63 and a 20% net clinical benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01776424. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01776424.

Global Variations in Heart Failure Etiology, Management, and Outcomes.

Importance: Most epidemiological studies of heart failure (HF) have been conducted in high-income countries with limited comparable data from middle- or low-income countries. Objective: To examine differences in HF etiology, treatment, and outcomes between groups of countries at different levels of economic development. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multinational HF registry of 23 341 participants in 40 high-income, upper-middle-income, lower-middle-income, and low-income countries, followed up for a median period of 2.0 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: HF cause, HF medication use, hospitalization, and death. Results: Mean (SD) age of participants was 63.1 (14.9) years, and 9119 (39.1%) were female. The most common cause of HF was ischemic heart disease (38.1%) followed by hypertension (20.2%). The proportion of participants with HF with reduced ejection fraction taking the combination of a ß-blocker, renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist was highest in upper-middle-income (61.9%) and high-income countries (51.1%), and it was lowest in low-income (45.7%) and lower-middle-income countries (39.5%) (P < .001). The age- and sex- standardized mortality rate per 100 person-years was lowest in high-income countries (7.8 [95% CI, 7.5-8.2]), 9.3 (95% CI, 8.8-9.9) in upper-middle-income countries, 15.7 (95% CI, 15.0-16.4) in lower-middle-income countries, and it was highest in low-income countries (19.1 [95% CI, 17.6-20.7]). Hospitalization rates were more frequent than death rates in high-income countries (ratio = 3.8) and in upper-middle-income countries (ratio = 2.4), similar in lower-middle-income countries (ratio = 1.1), and less frequent in low-income countries (ratio = 0.6). The 30-day case-fatality rate after first hospital admission was lowest in high-income countries (6.7%), followed by upper-middle-income countries (9.7%), then lower-middle-income countries (21.1%), and highest in low-income countries (31.6%). The proportional risk of death within 30 days of a first hospital admission was 3- to 5-fold higher in lower-middle-income countries and low-income countries compared with high-income countries after adjusting for patient characteristics and use of long-term HF therapies. Conclusions and Relevance: This study of HF patients from 40 different countries and derived from 4 different economic levels demonstrated differences in HF etiologies, management, and outcomes. These data may be useful in planning approaches to improve HF prevention and treatment globally.

A wearable cardioverter defibrillator with a low false alarm rate.

INTRODUCTION: A wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is indicated in appropriate patients to reduce the risk for sudden cardiac death. Challenges for patients wearing a WCD have been frequent false shock alarms primarily due to electrocardiogram noise and wear discomfort. The objective of this study was to test a contemporary WCD designed for reduced false shock alarms and improved comfort. METHODS: One hundred and thirty patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% and an active implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) were fitted with the ASSURE WCD (Kestra Medical Technologies) and followed for 30 days. WCD detection was enabled and shock alarm markers recorded, but shocks and shock alarms were disabled. All WCD episodes and ICD ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) episodes were adjudicated. The primary endpoint was the false-positive shock alarm rate with a performance goal of 1 every 3.4 days (0.29 per patient-day). RESULTS: Of 163 WCD episodes, 4 were VT/VF and 159 non-VT/VF (121 rhythms with noise, 32 uncertain with noise, 6 atrial flutter without noise). Only three false-positive shock alarm markers were recorded; one false-positive shock alarm every 1333 patient-days (0.00075 per patient-day, 95% confidence interval: 0.00015-0.00361; p < .001). No ICD recorded VT/VF episodes meeting WCD detection criteria (≥170 bpm for ≥20 s) were missed by the WCD during 3501 patient-days of use. Median wear was 31.0 days (interquartile range [IQR] 2.0) and median daily use 23.0 h (IQR 1.7). Adverse events were mostly mild: skin irritation (19.4%) and musculoskeletal discomfort (8.5%). CONCLUSION: The ASSURE WCD demonstrated a low false-positive shock alarm rate, low patient-reported discomfort, and no serious adverse events.

Role of Combination Antiplatelet and Anticoagulation Therapy in Diabetes Mellitus and Cardiovascular Disease: Insights From the COMPASS Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with established coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease often have diabetes mellitus. These patients are at high risk of future vascular events. METHODS: In a prespecified analysis of the COMPASS trial (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies), we compared the effects of rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg daily) versus placebo plus aspirin in patients with diabetes mellitus versus without diabetes mellitus in preventing major vascular events. The primary efficacy end point was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Secondary end points included all-cause mortality and all major vascular events (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or major adverse limb events, including amputation). The primary safety end point was a modification of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria for major bleeding. RESULTS: There were 10 341 patients with diabetes mellitus and 17 054 without diabetes mellitus in the overall trial. A consistent and similar relative risk reduction was seen for benefit of rivaroxaban plus aspirin (n=9152) versus placebo plus aspirin (n=9126) in patients both with (n=6922) and without (n=11 356) diabetes mellitus for the primary efficacy end point (hazard ratio, 0.74, P=0.002; and hazard ratio, 0.77, P=0.005, respectively, Pinteraction=0.77) and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.81, P=0.05; and hazard ratio, 0.84, P=0.09, respectively; Pinteraction=0.82). However, although the absolute risk reductions appeared numerically larger in patients with versus without diabetes mellitus, both subgroups derived similar benefit (2.3% versus 1.4% for the primary efficacy end point at 3 years, Gail-Simon qualitative Pinteraction<0.0001; 1.9% versus 0.6% for all-cause mortality, Pinteraction=0.02; 2.7% versus 1.7% for major vascular events, Pinteraction<0.0001). Because the bleeding hazards were similar among patients with and without diabetes mellitus, the prespecified net benefit for rivaroxaban appeared particularly favorable in the patients with diabetes mellitus (2.7% versus 1.0%; Gail-Simon qualitative Pinteraction=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In stable atherosclerosis, the combination of aspirin plus rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily provided a similar relative degree of benefit on coronary, cerebrovascular, and peripheral end points in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Given their higher baseline risk, the absolute benefits appeared larger in those with diabetes mellitus, including a 3-fold greater reduction in all-cause mortality. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01776424.

Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin Versus Aspirin Alone in Patients With Prior Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (COMPASS-PCI).

BACKGROUND: The COMPASS trial (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People using Anticoagulation Strategies) demonstrated that dual pathway inhibition (DPI) with rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg once daily versus aspirin 100 mg once daily reduced the primary major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, as well as, mortality, in patients with chronic coronary syndromes or peripheral arterial disease. Whether this remains true in patients with a history of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unknown. METHODS: In a prespecified subgroup analysis from COMPASS, we examined the outcomes of patients with chronic coronary syndrome with or without a previous PCI treated with DPI versus aspirin alone. Among patients with a previous PCI, we studied the effects of treatment according to the timing of the previous PCI. RESULTS: Of the 27 395 patients in COMPASS, 16 560 patients with a chronic coronary syndrome were randomly assigned to DPI or aspirin, and, of these, 9862 (59.6%) had previous PCI (mean age 68.2±7.8, female 19.4%, diabetes mellitus 35.7%, previous myocardial infarction 74.8%, multivessel PCI 38.0%). Average time from PCI to randomization was 5.4 years (SD, 4.4) and follow-up was 1.98 (SD, 0.72) years. Regardless of previous PCI, DPI versus aspirin produced consistent reductions in MACE (PCI: 4.0% versus 5.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.74 [95% CI, 0.61-0.88]; no PCI: 4.4% versus 5.7%; HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.61-0.94], P-interaction=0.85) and mortality (PCI: 2.5% versus 3.5%; HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.58-0.92]; no PCI: 4.1% versus 5.0%; HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.64-1.00], P-interaction=0.59), but increased major bleeding (PCI: 3.3% versus 2.0%; HR, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.34-2.21]; no PCI: 2.9% versus 1.8%; HR, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.15-2.17], P-interaction=0.68). In those with previous PCI, DPI compared with aspirin produced consistent (robust) reductions in MACE irrespective of time since previous PCI (as early as 1 year and as far as 10 years; P-interaction=0.65), irrespective of having a previous myocardial infarction (P-interaction=0.64). CONCLUSIONS: DPI compared with aspirin produced consistent reductions in MACE and mortality but with increased major bleeding with or without previous PCI. Among those with previous PCI 1 year and beyond, the effects on MACE and mortality were consistent irrespective of time since last PCI. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01776424.

Exploring potential mediators of the cardiovascular benefit of dulaglutide in type 2 diabetes patients in REWIND.

BACKGROUND: The REWIND trial demonstrated cardiovascular (CV) benefits to patients with type 2 diabetes and multiple CV risk factors or established CV disease. This exploratory analysis evaluated the degree to which the effect of dulaglutide on CV risk factors could statistically account for its effects on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in the REWIND trial. METHODS: Potential mediators of established CV risk factors that were significantly reduced by dulaglutide were assessed in a post hoc analysis using repeated measures mixed models and included glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), body weight, waist-to-hip ratio, systolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and urine albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR). These factors, for which the change in level during follow-up was significantly associated with incident MACE, were identified using Cox regression modeling. Each identified variable was then included as a covariate in the Cox model assessing the effect of dulaglutide on MACE to estimate the degree to which the hazard ratio of dulaglutide vs placebo was attenuated. The combined effect of the variables associated with attenuation was assessed by including all variables in an additional Cox model. RESULTS: Although all evaluated variables were significantly improved by treatment, only changes in HbA1c and UACR were associated with MACE and a reduction in the effect of dulaglutide on this outcome was observed. The observed hazard ratio for MACE for dulaglutide vs placebo reduced by 36.1% by the updated mean HbA1c, and by 28.5% by the updated mean UACR. A similar pattern was observed for change from baseline in HbA1c and UACR and a reduction of 16.7% and 25.4%, respectively in the hazard ratio for MACE with dulaglutide vs placebo was observed. When HbA1c and UACR were both included, the observed hazard ratio reduced by 65.4% for the updated mean and 41.7% for the change from baseline with no HbA1c-UACR interaction (P interaction = 0.75 and 0.15, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment-induced improvement in HbA1c and UACR, but not changes in weight, systolic blood pressure, or LDL cholesterol, appear to partly mediate the beneficial effects of dulaglutide on MACE outcomes. These observations suggest that the proven effects of dulaglutide on cardiovascular disease benefit are partially related to changes in glycemic control and albuminuria, with residual unexplained benefit. Clinicaltrials.gov; Trial registration number: NCT01394952. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01394952.

Design and baseline characteristics of the AMPLITUDE-O cardiovascular outcomes trial of efpeglenatide, a weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist.

AIM: The effect of the weekly exendin-based glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist efpeglenatide on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) with and without chronic kidney disease (CKD) is unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: People with T2DM and glycated haemoglobin >7%, ≥18 years old with previous CV disease, or ≥50 years old with CKD [defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-59.9 mL/min/1.73 m2 ], and one or more additional CV risk factors were recruited. Participants were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio, stratified by current, intended or neither current nor intended use of a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor to receive weekly injections of efpeglenatide (4 mg or 6 mg) or masked placebo. The primary outcome is a major adverse CV event defined as non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke or CV death. Secondary outcomes include a composite kidney outcome (new onset macroalbuminuria with an increase from baseline of ≥30%, sustained 40% decrease in eGFR, renal replacement therapy, or sustained eGFR <15 mL/min/1.73 m2 ). The trial will continue until ≥330 participants have had a major adverse CV event outcome and the sample size was based on accruing enough outcomes to detect non-inferiority of efpeglenatide versus placebo. RESULTS: Recruitment of 4076 participants (33% women, mean age 64.5 years) occurred between 11 May 2018 and 25 April 2019 at 344 sites in 28 countries. Mean baseline glycated haemoglobin was 8.9% (1.5), 31.6% had an eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 , 89.5% had previous CV disease and 15.0% were on an SGLT2 inhibitor. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the AMPLITUDE O trial will inform the use of exendin-based glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist to people with T2DM and high CV risk, with and without CKD, in the presence and absence of an SGLT2 inhibitor.

Rivaroxaban With or Without Aspirin in Patients With Heart Failure and Chronic Coronary or Peripheral Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease and history of heart failure (HF) are at high risk for major adverse cardiovascular events. We explored the effects of rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in these patients. METHODS: The COMPASS trial (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies) randomized 27 395 participants with chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease to rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily alone, or aspirin 100 mg alone. Patients with New York Heart Association functional class III or IV HF or left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) <30% were excluded. The primary major adverse cardiovascular events outcome comprised cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction, and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding using modified International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria. Investigators recorded a history of HF and EF at baseline, if available. We examined the effects of rivaroxaban on major adverse cardiovascular events and major bleeding in patients with or without a history of HF and an EF <40% or ≥40% at baseline. RESULTS: Of the 5902 participants (22%) with a history of HF, 4971 (84%) had EF recorded at baseline, and 12% had EF <40%. Rivaroxaban and aspirin had similar relative reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events compared with aspirin in participants with HF (5.5% versus 7.9%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53-0.86) and those without HF (3.8% versus 4.7%; HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.93; P for interaction 0.28) but larger absolute risk reduction in those with HF (HF absolute risk reduction 2.4%, number needed to treat=42; no HF absolute risk reduction 1.0%, number needed to treat=103). The primary major adverse cardiovascular events outcome was not statistically different between those with EF <40% (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.55-1.42) and ≥40% (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-0.98; P for interaction 0.36). The excess hazard for major bleeding was not different in participants with HF (2.5% versus 1.8%; HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.88-2.09) than in those without HF (3.3% versus 1.9%; HR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.45-2.21; P for interaction 0.26). There were no significant differences in the primary outcomes with rivaroxaban alone. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease and a history of mild or moderate HF, combination rivaroxaban and aspirin compared with aspirin alone produces similar relative but larger absolute benefits than in those without HF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01776424.

Rivaroxaban for Prevention of Covert Brain Infarcts and Cognitive Decline: The COMPASS MRI Substudy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Covert brain infarcts are associated with cognitive decline. It is not known whether therapies that prevent symptomatic stroke prevent covert infarcts. COMPASS compared rivaroxaban with and without aspirin with aspirin for the prevention of stroke, myocardial infarction, and vascular death in participants with stable vascular disease and was terminated early because of benefits of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin over aspirin. We obtained serial magnetic resonance imagings and cognitive tests in a consenting subgroup of COMPASS patients to examine treatment effects on infarcts, cerebral microbleeds, and white matter hyperintensities. METHODS: Baseline and follow-up magnetic resonance imagings were completed in 1445 participants with a mean (SD) interval of 2.0 (0.7) years. Whole-brain T1, T2 fluid-attenuated inversion recovery, T2* sequences were centrally interpreted by blinded, trained readers. Participants had serial measurements of cognition and function. The primary end point was the proportion of participants with incident covert infarcts. Secondary end points were the composite of clinical stroke and covert brain infarcts, cerebral microbleeds, and white matter hyperintensities. RESULTS: At baseline, 493 (34.1%) participants had infarcts. Incident covert infarcts occurred in 55 (3.8%) participants. In the overall trial rivaroxaban plus aspirin reduced ischemic stroke by 49% (0.7% versus 1.4%; hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.51 [0.38-0.68]). In the magnetic resonance imaging substudy the effects of rivaroxaban+aspirin versus aspirin were: covert infarcts: 2.7% versus 3.5% (odds ratio [95% CI], 0.77 [0.37-1.60]); Covert infarcts or ischemic stroke: 2.9% versus 5.3% (odds ratio [95% CI], 0.53 [0.27-1.03]). Incident microbleeds occurred in 6.6% of participants and 65.7% of participants had an increase in white matter hyperintensities volume with no effect of treatment for either end point. There was no effect on cognitive tests. CONCLUSIONS: Covert infarcts were not significantly reduced by treatment with rivaroxaban and aspirin but estimates for the combination of ischemic stroke and covert infarcts were consistent with the effect on ischemic stroke in the overall trial. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01776424.

Rivaroxaban with or without Aspirin in Stable Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary cardiovascular prevention. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=-4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events. (Funded by Bayer; COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01776424 .).

Safety of Proton Pump Inhibitors Based on a Large, Multi-Year, Randomized Trial of Patients Receiving Rivaroxaban or Aspirin.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are effective at treating acid-related disorders. These drugs are well tolerated in the short term, but long-term treatment was associated with adverse events in observational studies. We aimed to confirm these findings in an adequately powered randomized trial. METHODS: We performed a 3 × 2 partial factorial double-blind trial of 17,598 participants with stable cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease randomly assigned to groups given pantoprazole (40 mg daily, n = 8791) or placebo (n = 8807). Participants were also randomly assigned to groups that received rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) with aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg) alone. We collected data on development of pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, other enteric infections, fractures, gastric atrophy, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, chronic obstructive lung disease, dementia, cardiovascular disease, cancer, hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality every 6 months. Patients were followed up for a median of 3.01 years, with 53,152 patient-years of follow-up. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the pantoprazole and placebo groups in safety events except for enteric infections (1.4% vs 1.0% in the placebo group; odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.75). For all other safety outcomes, proportions were similar between groups except for C difficile infection, which was approximately twice as common in the pantoprazole vs the placebo group, although there were only 13 events, so this difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: In a large placebo-controlled randomized trial, we found that pantoprazole is not associated with any adverse event when used for 3 years, with the possible exception of an increased risk of enteric infections. ClinicalTrials.gov Number: NCT01776424.

Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in patients with stable coronary artery disease: an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and is a consequence of acute thrombotic events involving activation of platelets and coagulation proteins. Factor Xa inhibitors and aspirin each reduce thrombotic events but have not yet been tested in combination or against each other in patients with stable coronary artery disease. METHODS: In this multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, outpatient trial, patients with stable coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease were recruited at 602 hospitals, clinics, or community centres in 33 countries. This paper reports on patients with coronary artery disease. Eligible patients with coronary artery disease had to have had a myocardial infarction in the past 20 years, multi-vessel coronary artery disease, history of stable or unstable angina, previous multi-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention, or previous multi-vessel coronary artery bypass graft surgery. After a 30-day run in period, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive rivaroxaban (2·5 mg orally twice a day) plus aspirin (100 mg once a day), rivaroxaban alone (5 mg orally twice a day), or aspirin alone (100 mg orally once a day). Randomisation was computer generated. Each treatment group was double dummy, and the patients, investigators, and central study staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome of the COMPASS trial was the occurrence of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01776424, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between March 12, 2013, and May 10, 2016, 27 395 patients were enrolled to the COMPASS trial, of whom 24 824 patients had stable coronary artery disease from 558 centres. The combination of rivaroxaban plus aspirin reduced the primary outcome more than aspirin alone (347 [4%] of 8313 vs 460 [6%] of 8261; hazard ratio [HR] 0·74, 95% CI 0·65-0·86, p<0·0001). By comparison, treatment with rivaroxaban alone did not significantly improve the primary outcome when compared with treatment with aspirin alone (411 [5%] of 8250 vs 460 [6%] of 8261; HR 0·89, 95% CI 0·78-1·02, p=0·094). Combined rivaroxaban plus aspirin treatment resulted in more major bleeds than treatment with aspirin alone (263 [3%] of 8313 vs 158 [2%] of 8261; HR 1·66, 95% CI 1·37-2·03, p<0·0001), and similarly, more bleeds were seen in the rivaroxaban alone group than in the aspirin alone group (236 [3%] of 8250 vs 158 [2%] of 8261; HR 1·51, 95% CI 1·23-1·84, p<0·0001). The most common site of major bleeding was gastrointestinal, occurring in 130 [2%] patients who received combined rivaroxaban plus aspirin, in 84 [1%] patients who received rivaroxaban alone, and in 61 [1%] patients who received aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban plus aspirin reduced mortality when compared with aspirin alone (262 [3%] of 8313 vs 339 [4%] of 8261; HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·65-0·90, p=0·0012). INTERPRETATION: In patients with stable coronary artery disease, addition of rivaroxaban to aspirin lowered major vascular events, but increased major bleeding. There was no significant increase in intracranial bleeding or other critical organ bleeding. There was also a significant net benefit in favour of rivaroxaban plus aspirin and deaths were reduced by 23%. Thus, addition of rivaroxaban to aspirin has the potential to substantially reduce morbidity and mortality from coronary artery disease worldwide. FUNDING: Bayer AG.

Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in patients with stable peripheral or carotid artery disease: an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with peripheral artery disease have an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Antiplatelet agents are widely used to reduce these complications. METHODS: This was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial for which patients were recruited at 602 hospitals, clinics, or community practices from 33 countries across six continents. Eligible patients had a history of peripheral artery disease of the lower extremities (previous peripheral bypass surgery or angioplasty, limb or foot amputation, intermittent claudication with objective evidence of peripheral artery disease), of the carotid arteries (previous carotid artery revascularisation or asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis of at least 50%), or coronary artery disease with an ankle-brachial index of less than 0·90. After a 30-day run-in period, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive oral rivaroxaban (2·5 mg twice a day) plus aspirin (100 mg once a day), rivaroxaban twice a day (5 mg with aspirin placebo once a day), or to aspirin once a day (100 mg and rivaroxaban placebo twice a day). Randomisation was computer generated. Each treatment group was double dummy, and the patient, investigators, and central study staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke; the primary peripheral artery disease outcome was major adverse limb events including major amputation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01776424, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between March 12, 2013, and May 10, 2016, we enrolled 7470 patients with peripheral artery disease from 558 centres. The combination of rivaroxaban plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone reduced the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (126 [5%] of 2492 vs 174 [7%] of 2504; hazard ratio [HR] 0·72, 95% CI 0·57-0·90, p=0·0047), and major adverse limb events including major amputation (32 [1%] vs 60 [2%]; HR 0·54 95% CI 0·35-0·82, p=0·0037). Rivaroxaban 5 mg twice a day compared with aspirin alone did not significantly reduce the composite endpoint (149 [6%] of 2474 vs 174 [7%] of 2504; HR 0·86, 95% CI 0·69-1·08, p=0·19), but reduced major adverse limb events including major amputation (40 [2%] vs 60 [2%]; HR 0·67, 95% CI 0·45-1·00, p=0·05). The median duration of treatment was 21 months. The use of the rivaroxaban plus aspirin combination increased major bleeding compared with the aspirin alone group (77 [3%] of 2492 vs 48 [2%] of 2504; HR 1·61, 95% CI 1·12-2·31, p=0·0089), which was mainly gastrointestinal. Similarly, major bleeding occurred in 79 (3%) of 2474 patients with rivaroxaban 5 mg, and in 48 (2%) of 2504 in the aspirin alone group (HR 1·68, 95% CI 1·17-2·40; p=0·0043). INTERPRETATION: Low-dose rivaroxaban taken twice a day plus aspirin once a day reduced major adverse cardiovascular and limb events when compared with aspirin alone. Although major bleeding was increased, fatal or critical organ bleeding was not. This combination therapy represents an important advance in the management of patients with peripheral artery disease. Rivaroxaban alone did not significantly reduce major adverse cardiovascular events compared with asprin alone, but reduced major adverse limb events and increased major bleeding. FUNDING: Bayer AG.

External applicability of the COMPASS trial: an analysis of the reduction of atherothrombosis for continued health (REACH) registry.

Aims: The aims of the present study were to describe the proportion of patients eligible for the COMPASS trial within the Reduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health (REACH) registry, the reasons for ineligibility, and to put in perspective the characteristics and outcomes of trial-eligible patients from the REACH registry compared with those of patients enrolled in the reference aspirin arm of the COMPASS trial. Methods and results: The COMPASS selection and exclusion criteria were applied to REACH patients with either coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). We used the COMPASS primary composite outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke. In REACH, 31 873 patients had CAD or PAD and detailed information allowing evaluation of eligibility. Among these, 9518 (29.9%) patients had exclusion criteria and an additional 5480 patients (17.2%) did not fulfil the inclusion criteria and thus were not eligible. The 'COMPASS-Eligible' population therefore comprised 52.9% of the evaluable REACH patients (n = 16 875). The main reasons for exclusion were high-bleeding risk (51.8%), anticoagulant use (44.8%), requirement for dual antiplatelet therapy within 1 year of an ACS or PCI with stent, (25.9%), history of ischaemic stroke <1 year (12.4%), and severe renal failure (2.2%). Eligibility was highest among patients with PAD alone (68.4%). COMPASS-Eligible patients from REACH experienced higher annualized primary outcome event rates than patients actually enrolled in the reference aspirin arm of COMPASS (4.2% vs. 2.9% per year, P < 0.001). Conclusion: COMPASS-Eligible patients represent a substantial fraction of stable CAD/PAD patients encountered in routine clinical practice in the large international REACH registry suggesting good external applicability. COMPASS-Eligible patients experienced a higher rate of the primary outcome compared with COMPASS participants in the aspirin alone treatment arm.

Incidence and Risk Factors for Postcontrast Acute Kidney Injury in Survivors of Sudden Cardiac Arrest.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Survivors of sudden cardiac arrest may be exposed to iodinated contrast from invasive coronary angiography or contrast-enhanced computed tomography, although the effects on incident acute kidney injury are unknown. The study objective was to determine whether contrast administration within the first 24 hours was associated with acute kidney injury in survivors of sudden cardiac arrest. METHODS: This cohort study, derived from a prospective clinical trial, included patients with sudden cardiac arrest who survived for 48 hours, had no history of end-stage renal disease, and had at least 2 serum creatinine measurements during hospitalization. The contrast group included patients with exposure to iodinated contrast within 24 hours of sudden cardiac arrest. Incident acute kidney injury and first-time dialysis were compared between contrast and no contrast groups and then controlled for known acute kidney injury risk factors. RESULTS: Of the 199 survivors of sudden cardiac arrest, 94 received iodinated contrast. Mean baseline serum creatinine level was 1.3 mg/dL (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4 to 1.5 mg/dL) for the contrast group and 1.6 mg/dL (95% CI 1.4 to 1.7 mg/dL) for the no contrast group. Incident acute kidney injury was lower in the contrast group (12.8%) than the no contrast group (17.1%; difference 4.4%; 95% CI -9.2% to 17.5%). Contrast administration was not associated with significant increases in incident acute kidney injury within quartiles of baseline serum creatinine level or after controlling for age, sex, race, congestive heart failure, diabetes, and admission serum creatinine level by regression analysis. Older age was independently associated with acute kidney injury. CONCLUSION: Despite elevated baseline serum creatinine level in most survivors of sudden cardiac arrest, iodinated contrast administration was not associated with incident acute kidney injury even when other acute kidney injury risk factors were controlled for. Thus, although acute kidney injury is not uncommon among survivors of sudden cardiac arrest, early (<24 hours) contrast administration from imaging procedures did not confer an increased risk for acute kidney injury.