Effect of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin on new-onset diabetes mellitus in patients treated with high-intensity statin therapy for coronary artery disease: a post-hoc analysis from the LODESTAR randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The impact of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin on new-onset diabetes mellitus (NODM) among patients treated with high-intensity statin therapy for coronary artery disease (CAD) remains to be clarified. This study aimed to evaluate the risk of NODM in patients with CAD treated with rosuvastatin compared to atorvastatin in the randomized LODESTAR trial. METHODS: In the LODESTAR trial, patients with CAD were randomly assigned to receive either rosuvastatin or atorvastatin using a 2-by-2 factorial randomization. In this post-hoc analysis, the 3-year incidence of NODM was compared between rosuvastatin and atorvastatin treatment in the as-treated population with high-intensity statin therapy as the principal population of interest. RESULTS: Among 2932 patients without diabetes mellitus at baseline, 2377 were included in the as-treated population analysis. In the as-treated population with high-intensity statin therapy, the incidence of NODM was not significantly different between the rosuvastatin and atorvastatin groups (11.4% [106/948] versus 8.8% [73/856], hazard ratio [HR] = 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.98 to 1.77, P = 0.071). When the risk of NODM with rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin was assessed according to the achieved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level, the risk of NODM began to increase at a LDL-C level below 70 mg/dL. The incidence of NODM was significantly greater in the rosuvastatin group than it was in the atorvastatin group when the achieved LDL-C level was < 70 mg/dL (13.9% versus 8.0%; HR = 1.79, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.73, P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Among CAD patients receiving high-intensity statin therapy, the incidence of NODM was not significantly different between rosuvastatin and atorvastatin. However, a drug effect of the statin type on NODM was observed when the achieved LDL-C level was < 70 mg/dL. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT02579499.

Treat-to-target or high-intensity statin treatment in older adults with coronary artery disease: a post hoc analysis of the LODESTAR trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal statin treatment strategy that is balanced for both efficacy and safety has not been clearly determined in older adults with coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: In the post hoc analysis of the LODESTAR (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol-targeting statin therapy versus intensity-based statin therapy in patients with coronary artery disease) trial, the impact between a treat-to-target strategy versus a high-intensity statin therapy strategy was compared in older adults (aged 75 years or older). The goal of treat-to-target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level was 50-70 mg/dl. The primary endpoint comprised the three-year composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke or coronary revascularisation. RESULTS: Among 4,400 patients with CAD enrolled in the LODESTAR trial, 822 (18.7%) were aged 75 years or older. Poor clinical outcomes and risk factors for atherosclerosis were more frequently observed in older adults than in younger population (<75 years old). Among these older adults with CAD, the prescription rate of high-intensity statin was significantly lower in the treat-to-target strategy group throughout the study period (P < 0.001). The mean LDL-C level for three years was 65 ± 16 mg/dl in the treat-to-target strategy group and 64 ± 18 mg/dl in the high-intensity statin group (P = 0.34). The incidence of primary endpoint occurrence was 10.9% in the treat-to-target strategy group and 12.0% in the high-intensity statin group (hazard ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.61-1.38, P = 0.69). CONCLUSIONS: High-intensity statin therapy is theoretically more necessary in older adults because of worse clinical outcomes and greater number of risk factors for atherosclerosis. However, the primary endpoint occurrence with a treat-to-target strategy with an LDL-C goal of 50-70 mg/dl was comparable to that of high-intensity statin therapy and reduced utilisation of a high-intensity statin. Taking efficacy as well as safety into account, adopting a tailored approach may be considered for this high-risk population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02579499.

Distal Radial Access for Coronary Procedures in a Large Prospective Multicenter Registry: The KODRA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Distal radial access (DRA) as an alternative access route lacks evidence, despite its recent reputation. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of DRA on the basis of daily practice. METHODS: The KODRA (Korean Prospective Registry for Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Distal Radial Approach) trial was a prospective multicenter registry conducted at 14 hospitals between September 2019 and September 2021. The primary endpoints were the success rates of coronary angiography (CAG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The secondary endpoints included successful distal radial artery puncture, access-site crossover, access site-related complications, bleeding events, and predictors of puncture failure. RESULTS: A total of 4,977 among 5,712 screened patients were recruited after the exclusion of 735 patients. The primary endpoints, the success rates of CAG and PCI via DRA, were 100% and 98.8%, respectively, among successful punctures of the distal radial artery (94.4%). Access-site crossover occurred in 333 patients (6.7%). The rates of distal radial artery occlusion and radial artery occlusion by palpation were 0.8% (36 of 4,340) and 0.8% (33 of 4,340) at 1-month follow-up. DRA-related bleeding events were observed in 3.3% of patients, without serious hematoma. Multilevel logistic regression analysis identified weak pulse (OR: 9.994; 95% CI: 7.252-13.774) and DRA experience <100 cases (OR: 2.187; 95% CI: 1.383-3.456) as predictors of puncture failure. CONCLUSIONS: In this large-scale prospective multicenter registry, DRA demonstrated high success rates of CAG and PCI, with a high rate of puncture success but low rates of distal radial artery occlusion, radial artery occlusion, bleeding events, and procedure-related complications. Weak pulse and DRA experience <100 cases were predictors of puncture failure. (Korean Prospective Registry for Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Distal Radial Approach [KODRA]; NCT04080700).

The Efficacy and Tolerability of Irbesartan/Amlodipine Combination Therapy in Patients With Essential Hypertension Whose Blood Pressure Were not Controlled by Irbesartan Monotherapy.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of irbesartan (IRB) and amlodipine (AML) combination therapy in patients with essential hypertension whose blood pressure (BP) was not controlled by IRB monotherapy. METHODS: Two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III studies were conducted in Korea (the I-DUO 301 study and the I-DUO 302 study). After a 4-week run-in period with either 150 mg IRB (I-DUO 301 study) or 300 mg IRB (I-DUO 302 study), patients with uncontrolled BP (ie, mean sitting systolic BP [MSSBP] ≥140 mmHg to <180 mmHg and mean sitting diastolic BP <110 mmHg) were randomized to the placebo, AML 5 mg, or AML 10 mg group. A total of 428 participants were enrolled in the 2 I-DUO studies. In the I-DUO 301 study, 271 participants were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive either IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, or IRB 150 mg/placebo. In the I-DUO 302 study, 157 participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive IRB/AML 300/5 mg or IRB 300 mg/placebo. The primary endpoint was the change in MSSBP from baseline to week 8. Tolerability was assessed according to the development of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and clinically significant changes in physical examination, laboratory tests, pulse, and 12-lead electrocardiography. FINDINGS: In I-DUO 301, the mean (SD) changes of MSSBP at week 8 from baseline were -14.78 (12.35) mmHg, -21.47 (12.78) mmHg, and -8.61 (12.19) mmHg in the IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, and IRB 150 mg/placebo groups, respectively. In I-DUO 302, the mean (SD) changes of MSSBP at week 8 from baseline were -13.30 (12.47) mmHg and -7.19 (15.37) mmHg in the IRB/AML 300/5 mg and IRB 300 mg/placebo groups, respectively. In both studies, all combination groups showed a significantly higher reduction in MSSBP than the IRB monotherapy groups (P < 0.001 for both). TEAEs occurred in 10.00%, 10.99%, and 12.22% of participants in the IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, and IRB 150 mg/placebo groups, respectively, in I-DUO 301 and in 6.33% and 10.67% of participants in the IRB/AML 300/5 mg and IRB 300 mg/placebo groups, respectively, in I-DUO 302, with no significant between-group differences. Overall, there was one serious adverse event throughout I-DUO study. IMPLICATIONS: The combination of IRB and AML has superior antihypertensive effects compared with IRB alone over an 8-week treatment period, with placebo-like tolerability. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05476354 (I-DUO 301), NCT05475665 (I-DUO 302).