Benefits of Adding Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists to Sodium-Glucose Co-Transporter 2 Inhibitors in Diabetic Patients With Atherosclerotic Disease and Heart Failure.

Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) reduce the risk of cardiovascular events and heart failure hospitalization (HFH) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2), and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The role of glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists (GLP1a) in these patients is unclear. We designed this study to assess if the addition of GLP1a to SGLT2i therapy improves outcomes in patients with HFrEF, DM2, and ASCVD. This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with DM2, ASCVD, and HFrEF in the national Veterans Affairs database. Patients on SGLT2i were propensity matched to patients on both SGTL2i and GLP1a. The co-primary outcomes were HFH and the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. We assessed them through a Cox regression model including unbalanced baseline characteristics. From a cohort of 5,576 patients, 343 were propensity matched to each study arm. The addition of GLP1a was associated with a 67% reduction in the 1-year risk of a composite event compared with therapy with SGLT2i (confidence interval 0.138 to 0.714, p = 0.007). The risk of HFH was not significantly different between both arms (p = 0.199). Sensitivity analyses in the unmatched dataset confirmed these findings. In conclusion, the addition of GLP1a to SGLT2i may reduce the risk of adverse events in patients with HFrEF who have DM2 and ASCVD, but it does not affect the risk of HFH.

Inaccuracy of point-of-care international normalized ratio in rivaroxaban-treated patients.

OBJECTIVE: To report 2 cases in which point-of-care international normalized ratios (POC-INRs) measured using a Hemochron Jr. Signature Elite device (International Technidyne Corporation) were inaccurate in rivaroxaban-treated patients. CASE SUMMARIES: Therapy in an 86-year-old man with atrial fibrillation was converted from warfarin to rivaroxaban 15 mg twice daily because of a deep venous thrombotic event despite an INR of 2.4, which was within the therapeutic range. One week later a POC-INR was inadvertently measured, which was 6.3. In light of the POC-INR being markedly elevated, a laboratory test for INR was performed, which gave a result of 2.74. Therapy in a 66-year-old man was converted from war-farin to rivaroxaban 15 mg twice daily because of unstable INRs and a pulmonary embolism despite a therapeutic INR. Seven days after rivaroxaban was started, the patient's POC-INR was 9.2; simultaneously measured laboratory-determined INR was 2.0. For both patients, coagulation tests performed on follow-up visits revealed continued discordance between the POC and laboratory assays. DISCUSSION: Rivaroxaban is an oral factor Xa inhibitor with a predictable pharmacokinetic profile, allowing for a fixed-dose regimen without the need for coagulation monitoring. When patients' therapy is switched from rivaroxaban to warfarin, it is recommended that the drugs be given concurrently until the INR is 2.0 or higher, to ensure adequate anticoagulation during this well-recognized vulnerable period for stroke. POC testing is a common method of INR assessment in clinical practice. During ROCKET-AF (Rivaroxaban Once-Daily, Oral, Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation), POC-INRs were measured exclusively with the INRatio device (Hemosense), and values above 4 were seen very rarely (0.25%), which indicates that the values determined in our patients were highly unusual. CONCLUSIONS: Our 2 patients receiving rivaroxaban had POC-INRs elevated beyond what was expected; these measurements were discordant from INRs simultaneously measured via the laboratory. A prospective evaluation assessing the accuracy of other commonly used POC-INR devices in patients receiving rivaroxaban would determine whether our findings extend to other devices. Until that time, laboratory measurement of INR or POC-INR using an INRatio device is recommended when patients' therapy is transitioned from rivaroxaban to warfarin.

Laboratory monitoring of anticoagulant medications: focus on novel oral anticoagulants.

Novel oral anticoagulants, direct thrombin inhibitors, and factor Xa inhibitors are being introduced into clinical practice. In contrast to vitamin K antagonists, such as warfarin, these novel agents, because of their relatively wide therapeutic range and predictable pharmacokinetics, have been evaluated in clinical trials and approved for clinical use without the need for routine coagulation monitoring. On occasion, it will be important to assess the anticoagulant status of patients treated with these agents. As a result of their targeted mechanisms of action, they affect standard coagulation assays differently than vitamin K antagonists and heparins, and such assay results may not provide clinically useful information. Thus, less commonly used coagulation assays (eg, chromogenic anti-factor Xa activity assays, diluted thrombin time, and ecarin-based clotting tests) may be introduced into clinical practice. These assays are currently limited by the absence of validated therapeutic targets and lack of standardization across laboratories, vendors, and medication classes. This article provides an overview of the coagulation assays and their potential role in determining the anticoagulant status of patients treated with the emerging anticoagulants.

Discordance of Non-HDL and Directly Measured LDL Cholesterol: Which Lipid Measure is Preferred When Calculated LDL Is Inaccurate?

Objective. To determine if non-HDL cholesterol (N-HDL) and directly measured LDL cholesterol (D-LDL) are clinically equivalent measurements. Patients and Methods. Eighty-one subjects recruited for 2 cholesterol treatment studies had at least 1 complete fasting lipid panel and D-LDL performed simultaneously; 64 had a second assessment after 4 to 6 weeks, resulting in 145 triads of C-LDL, D-LDL, and N-HDL. To directly compare N-HDL to D-LDL and C-LDL, we normalized the N-HDL by subtracting 30 from the N-HDL (N-HDLA). Results. There was significant correlation between N-HDLA, D-LDL, and C-LDL. Correlation was significantly greater between N-HDLA and C-LDL than between N-HDLA and D-LDL. A greater than 20 mg/dL difference between measures was observed more commonly between N-HDLA and D-LDL, 29%, than between C-LDL and N-HDLA, 11% (P < 0.001), and C-LDL and D-LDL, 17% (P = 0.028). Clinical discordance was most common, and concordance was least common between N-HDL and D-LDL. Conclusions. Our findings suggest that N-HDL cholesterol and D-LDL cholesterol are not clinically equivalent and frequently discordant. As N-HDL may be superior to even C-LDL for predicting events in statin-treated patients, utilizing N-HDL to guide therapy would appear to be preferable to D-LDL when C-LDL is inaccurate.

Interpretation of point-of-care INR results in patients treated with dabigatran.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care devices for measurement of the international normalized ratio (INR) are commonly used to monitor therapy and maintain therapeutic levels of anticoagulation in patients treated with vitamin K antagonists. Dabigatran, a new oral, reversible direct thrombin inhibitor approved for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation does not require routine coagulation monitoring. However, case reports have identified falsely elevated point-of-care INR levels in patients treated with dabigatran using one of these devices (Hemochron). This in vitro study was designed to verify this issue. METHODS: We compared INR levels in whole blood and plasma using a Hemochron Jr. Signature+ point-of-care device (International Technidyne Corporation, Edison, NJ) with routine laboratory monitoring, using blood from healthy volunteers that was spiked with increasing concentrations of dabigatran. RESULTS: Prothrombin time and INR levels were increased about 2- to 4-fold with the point-of-care device compared with laboratory measures across the plasma dabigatran concentration range 50-1400 ng/mL. At plasma concentrations of dabigatran likely to be observed in patients, at a dose of 150 mg twice daily (60-275 ng/mL), whole blood point-of-care INR values increased from 1.7 to 4.0, versus 1.1 to 1.5 measured with the laboratory coagulometer. Similar differences in prothrombin time were observed in plasma samples. CONCLUSIONS: INR levels in patients taking dabigatran are substantially higher using a Hemochron Jr. point-of-care device compared with laboratory values. We discourage the use of these devices specifically, as well as the use of the INR in general, for measuring the anticoagulant effect of dabigatran.

Potential inaccuracy of point-of-care INR in dabigatran-treated patients.

OBJECTIVE: To report 2 cases in which point-of-care international normalized ratios (INRs) in dabigatran-treated patients were inaccurate. CASE SUMMARY: A 59-year-old woman with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation was started on warfarin. After 3 days, warfarin was discontinued, and the decision was made to switch to dabigatran 150 mg twice a day, which was started 2 days after the warfarin was discontinued. As treatment was being converted from warfarin to dabigatran therapy, the woman's primary care physician referred her to our anticoagulation clinic, where her point-of-care INR was 7.2. A laboratory INR performed approximately 30 minutes later was 1.7. Several repeat point-of-care INRs were elevated and discordant with the laboratory INRs. A second patient, a 52-year-old man, was started on dabigatran after an ablation procedure, as a bridge to warfarin. Approximately 16 hours after a single dose of dabigatran etexilate 150 mg, the point-of-care INR was 1.6. DISCUSSION: Dabigatran etexilate is an oral direct thrombin inhibitor that is approved for use in thromboprophylaxis of atrial fibrillation and deep vein thrombosis. Dabigatran's predictable pharmacokinetic profile allows for a fixed-dose regimen without the need for coagulation monitoring. In certain clinical situations (eg, switching treatment between dabigatran and warfarin), INR testing is performed as part of routine clinical care. During the development program for dabigatran, laboratory testing of INR was performed, with INRs at therapeutic concentrations of dabigatran ranging from 1.1 to 1.7. Supratherapeutic concentrations of dabigatran elevated the INR to slightly higher levels, between 1.7 and 2.4. Even at extremely high dabigatran concentrations, the INR was generally in the range of 2.3-3.5. CONCLUSIONS: We advocate laboratory INR testing with simultaneous assessment of the activated partial thromboplastin time in patients who are receiving or who have recently received dabigatran. A prospective evaluation assessing the accuracy of the commonly used point-of-care INR devices in patients receiving dabigatran would confirm our findings with respect to this device and determine whether our findings extend to other commonly used devices.

Is directly measured low-density lipoprotein clinically equivalent to calculated low-density lipoprotein?

BACKGROUND: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) can either be calculated or measured directly. Clinical guidelines recommend the use of calculated LDL-C (C-LDL-C) to guide therapy because the evidence base for cholesterol management is derived almost exclusively from trials that use C-LDL-C, with direct measurement of LDL-C (D-LDL-C) being reserved for those patients who are nonfasting or with significant hypertriglyceridemia. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to determine the clinical equivalence of directly measured-LDL-C, using a Siemens Advia Chemistry System, and fasting C-LDL-C. METHODS: Eighty-one subjects recruited for two cholesterol treatment studies had at least one C-LDL-C and D-LDL-C performed simultaneously; 64 had a repeat lipid assessment after 4 to 6 weeks of therapy, resulting in 145 pairs of C-LDL-C and D-LDL-C. RESULTS: There was significant correlation between D-LDL-C and C-LDL-C (r² = 0.86). Correlation was significantly better in those with lower total cholesterol, triglycerides, and high-density lipoprotein. In 60% of subjects, the difference between D-LDL-C and C-LDL-C was more than 5 mg/dL and greater than 6%. Clinical concordance between D-LDL-C and C-LDL-C was present in 40% of patients, whereas clinical discordance was noted in 25%. One-third had greater than a 15 mg/dL difference between D-LDL-C and C-LDL-C, whereas 25% had a greater than 20 mg/dL difference. In 47% of subjects, the difference between D-LDL-C and C-LDL-C at baseline and follow-up changed by a minimum of 10% or 10 mg/dL. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that D-LDL-C is not clinically equivalent to C-LDL-C. This puts into question the current recommendation of using D-LDL-C in situations in which C-LDL-C would be inaccurate.

Effect on serum lipid levels of switching dose of ezetimibe from 10 to 5 mg.

Although during its initial development, lower doses of ezetimibe reduced low-density lipoprotein (LDL) significantly, ezetimibe is available only in 10-mg form. Compliant patients receiving ezetimibe 10 mg were randomized in a blinded fashion to continue therapy with ezetimibe 10 mg or to convert to a split-tablet 5-mg dose. Lipid panels were collected at baseline and after 4 weeks of therapy. The impact of the 2 ezetimibe dosing strategies on LDL and the achievement of the Adult Treatment Panel III LDL goal was evaluated. One hundred thirty patients receiving ezetimibe 10 mg were screened for eligibility. Thirty-nine of the 130 patients were randomized; 36 patients successfully completed the study. All patients who had achieved their Adult Treatment Panel III LDL goals at baseline remained at their LDL goals after conversion to 5 mg. In conclusion, conversion to the lower dose of ezetimibe did not result in any clinically meaningful or statistically significant changes in any lipid parameter.

Ezetimibe 5 and 10 mg for lowering LDL-C: potential billion-dollar savings with improved tolerability.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical efficacy of ezetimibe 5 mg (prescribed as a 10-mg tablet split in half) with a whole 10-mg tablet. STUDY DESIGN: From January 2003 through July 2005, all Bronx Veterans Administration ezetimibe prescriptions were for 10 mg. In August 2005, it was mandated that all new ezetimibe prescriptions be 5 mg, prescribed as a 10-mg tablet split in half. METHODS: The impact of the 2 ezetimibe dosing strategies on percent lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and achievement of National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) goals was assessed in all patients prescribed ezetimibe 5 or 10 mg. RESULTS: A total of 272 patients were prescribed ezetimibe; 86 received 5 mg and 186 received 10 mg. Of those 272 patients, 197 had evaluable baseline and posttreatment LDL-C (55 taking the 5-mg dose and 142 taking the 10-mg dose). The effects of ezetimibe 5 and 10 mg on all lipid parameters were similar. Ezetimibe 10 mg reduced LDL-C by 26.1%, whereas 5 mg reduced LDL-C by 25.8%. The percentages of patients achieving goal LDL-C were similar: 61.8% (5 mg) and 60.5% (10 mg). CONCLUSION: These data strongly suggest that ezetimibe 5 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg are clinically equivalent with respect to LDL-C reduction and achievement of ATP III LDL-C goals. Widespread adoption of this low-dose strategy could result in a potential cost savings of more than a billion dollars annually, with a potential reduction in hepatotoxicity.

Can patients at elevated risk of stroke treated with anticoagulants be further risk stratified?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patients with atrial fibrillation have a varied risk of stroke, depending on age and comorbid conditions. The objective of this study was to assess the predictive value of stroke risk classification schemes and to identify patients with atrial fibrillation who are at substantial risk of stroke despite optimal anticoagulant therapy. METHODS: Seven recognized classification schemes-the American College of Chest Physicians 2001, American College of Chest Physicians 2004, Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation (SPAF), Atrial Fibrillation Investigators, Framingham, van Walraven, and CHADS(2)-were compared for their ability to predict ischemic stroke in patients receiving anticoagulant therapy. Data came from the Stroke Prevention using an ORal Thrombin Inhibitor in atrial Fibrillation III and V trials, which compared the efficacy of adjusted-dose warfarin and the direct thrombin inhibitor ximelagatran (36 mg twice daily) in preventing thromboembolic events in 7329 patients with chronic or paroxysmal nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who were at moderate or high risk of ischemic stroke. The main outcome measure was ischemic stroke, as determined by a central event adjudication committee. RESULTS: During 11 245 patient-years of follow-up, 159 patients had an ischemic stroke (1.4%/year). As indicated by c statistics and hazard ratios, 3 of the classification schemes predicted stroke significantly better than chance: Framingham (c=0.64), CHADS(2) (c=0.65), and SPAF (c=0.61). CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of atrial fibrillation patients at moderate or high risk of ischemic stroke treated with warfarin or ximelagatran, the CHADS(2), SPAF, and Framingham schemes had greater predictive accuracy than chance. This predictive ability may allow clinicians to target high-risk patients for more aggressive intervention.

Diastolic dysfunction in heart failure with preserved systolic function: need for objective evidence:results from the CHARM Echocardiographic Substudy-CHARMES.

OBJECTIVES: We tested the hypothesis that diastolic dysfunction (DD) was an important predictor of cardiovascular (CV) death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization in a subset of patients (ejection fraction [EF] >40%) in the CHARM-Preserved study. BACKGROUND: More than 40% of hospitalized patients with HF have preserved systolic function (HF-PSF), suggesting that DD may be responsible for the clinical manifestations of HF. METHODS: Patients underwent Doppler echocardiographic examination that included assessment of pulmonary venous flow or determination of plasma NT-pro-brain natriuretic peptide > or months after randomization to candesartan or placebo. The patients were classified into 1 of 4 diastolic function groups: normal, relaxation abnormality (mild dysfunction), pseudonormal (moderate dysfunction), and restrictive (severe dysfunction). RESULTS: There were 312 patients in the study, mean age was 66 +/- 11 years, EF was 50 +/- 10%, and 34% were women. The median follow-up was 18.7 months. Diastolic dysfunction was found in 67% of classified patients (n = 293), and moderate and severe DD were identified in 44%. Moderate and severe DD had a poor outcome compared with normal and mild DD (18% vs. 5%, p < 0.01). Diastolic dysfunction, age, diabetes, previous HF, and atrial fibrillation were univariate predictors of outcome. In multivariate analysis, moderate (hazard ratio [HR] 3.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2 to 11.1) and severe DD (HR 5.7, 95% CI 1.4 to 24.0) remained the only independent predictors (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Objective evidence of DD was found in two-thirds of HF-PSF patients. Moderate and severe DD, which were found in less than one-half of the patients, were important predictors of adverse outcome. The results demonstrate the prognostic significance and need for objective evidence of DD in HF-PSF patients.

Comparison of treatment benefit and outcome in women versus men with chronic heart failure (from the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial).

The comparison of treatment effect and co-morbidity between the genders in the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial showed equal benefit of treatment in men and women. Co-morbidities, such as diabetes and coronary artery disease, increased nonfatal cardiac morbidity more in women than in men.

Hypertension and the elderly: more than just blood pressure control.

Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease in both young and elderly persons; therefore, good blood pressure control is at the center of improved cardiovascular health. The recently issued seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure and the European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology 2003 guidelines for hypertension management emphasize the importance of treatment efficacy rather than age in treating elderly persons with hypertension. Most hypertension clinical trials have been carried out with younger hypertensives, but this is changing with trials such as the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program, the first Swedish Trial of Old Patients With Hypertension, and the Systolic Hypertension in Europe trial. These trials have clearly demonstrated the benefits of good blood pressure control in reducing the risk of stroke in elderly persons. With many safe and effective antihypertensive drugs on the market, the question becomes how elderly persons should be treated. Elderly patients often have isolated systolic hypertension, which is related to loss of arterial elasticity or compliance with aging and is more recalcitrant to treatment than essential hypertension. In addition, with advancing age there is the likelihood that other disease states are present in addition to hypertension. The newer antihypertensive drugs that interfere with the renin angiotensin system, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers, have the potential of improving cardiovascular outcomes in elderly persons in addition to offering effective blood pressure reduction. Their use should be considered within a comprehensive risk assessment that includes individualized risk-benefit considerations.

Beta-blockers in heart failure: is more better?

Therapies that modulate the sympathetic nervous system and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure. However, they are grossly underused in clinical practice; when used, the doses prescribed are substantially smaller than the target doses used in the large-scale studies that established their utility. Whether these suboptimal doses are as effective in reducing morbidity and mortality is largely unknown. This review focuses on the relationship between the dose of b-blockers and their effect on clinical outcomes. Because direct dose comparisons of b-blockers are limited, we draw upon a broader spectrum of clinical trials across the cardiovascular continuum that involved neurohormonal modulators to address the question, "Is more better?"

Morbidity, mortality, physiologic and functional parameters in elderly and non-elderly patients in the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT).

BACKGROUND: The Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT) demonstrated the favorable effects of the addition of valsartan to prescribed heart failure (HF) therapy on HF hospitalization, and functional and physiological parameters. As the prevalence of HF morbidity and mortality are increased in the elderly, the effect of valsartan in the elderly is of clinical significance. METHODS: In this post-hoc analysis, morbidity, mortality, left ventricular (LV) size and function, brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), aldosterone, norepinephrine (NE), quality of life, and treatment effect with valsartan were examined by subgroups of 2350 elderly (>or= 65 years) and 2660 non-elderly (< 65 years) patients enrolled in Val-HeFT. RESULTS: While the overall incidence of morbidity and mortality was higher in the elderly, valsartan produced beneficial effects in reducing risk of morbidity in the elderly by 11.8% (P = .07), and the non-elderly by 14.6% (P = .09). Valsartan had no effect on mortality compared to placebo in the non-elderly, 15.2% vs 15.0% (P = .87), and elderly, 25.1% vs 24.0%, (P = .64). Valsartan had statistically significant beneficial effects in both the elderly and non-elderly on LV size and function, BNP, aldosterone and quality of life. Beneficial effects on NE were also observed with valsartan in both subgroups with statistically significant reductions produced in the non-elderly. CONCLUSIONS: Val-HeFT demonstrated that elderly patients present with more advanced HF as evidenced by higher morbidity and mortality along with greater neurohormonal activation. In Val-HeFT, valsartan produced a consistent beneficial effect on morbidity, LV function and size, quality of life, and neurohormonal levels in both the elderly and non-elderly.