Estimating the real-world performance of the PROMISE minimal-risk tool.

BACKGROUND: Stable chest pain is a common indication for cardiac catheterization. We assessed the prognostic value of the Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation (PROMISE) Minimal-Risk Tool in identifying patients who are at very low risk of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) or downstream cardiovascular adverse outcomes. METHODS: We applied the PROMISE Minimal-Risk Tool to consecutive patients without known CAD who underwent elective cardiac catheterization for stable angina from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2014 in the Duke Databank for Cardiovascular Disease (DDCD). Patients with scores >0.46 (top decile of lowest-risk from the PROMISE cohort) were classified as low-risk. Logistic regression modeling compared likelihood of freedom from obstructive coronary artery disease on index angiography, 2-year survival, and 2-year survival free of myocardial infarction (MI) and MI/revascularization between low- and non low-risk patients. Alternative cut points to define low- risk patients were also explored. RESULTS: Among 6251 patients undergoing cardiac catheterization for stable chest pain, 1082 (17.3%) were low-risk per the PROMISE minimal-risk tool. Among low risk patients, obstructive coronary artery disease was observed in 14.9% and left main disease (≥ 50% Stenosis) was rare (0.9%). Compared with other patients, low risk patients had a higher likelihood of freedom from obstructive coronary disease on index catheterization (85.1% vs. 44.2%, OR 4.84, 95% CI 4.06-5.77). Low risk patients had significantly higher survival (98.2% vs. 94.4%, OR 3.18, 95% CI 1.99-5.08), MI-free survival (97.2% vs. 91.9%, OR 3.03, 95% CI 2.07-4.45), and MI/revascularization-free survival (86.2 vs. 59.9%, OR 4.19, 95% CI 3.48-5.05) at 2 years than non-low risk patients. Operating characteristics for predicting the outcomes of interest varied modestly depending on the low-risk cut-point used but the positive predictive value for 2 year freedom from death was >98% regardless. CONCLUSION: The PROMISE minimal-risk tool identifies 17% of stable chest pain patients referred to cardiac catheterization as low risk. These patients have a low prevalence of obstructive CAD and better survival than non-low risk patients. While this suggests that these patients are unlikely to benefit from catheterization, further research is needed to confirm a favorable downstream prognosis with medical management alone.

Psychosocial stress and major cardiovascular events in patients with stable coronary heart disease.

OBJECTIVES: Assess the risk of ischaemic events associated with psychosocial stress in patients with stable coronary heart disease (CHD). METHODS: Psychosocial stress was assessed by a questionnaire in 14 577 patients (median age 65.0, IQR 59, 71; 81.6% males) with stable CHD on optimal secondary preventive therapy in the prospective randomized STABILITY clinical trial. Adjusted Cox regression models were used to assess associations between individual stressors, baseline cardiovascular risk factors and outcomes. RESULTS: After 3.7 years of follow-up, depressive symptoms, loss of interest and financial stress were associated with increased risk (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval) of CV death (1.21, 1.09-1.34; 1.15, 1.05-1.27; and 1.19, 1.08-1.30, respectively) and the primary composite end-point of CV death, nonfatal MI or nonfatal stroke (1.21, 1.13-1.30; 1.19, 1.11-1.27; and 1.17, 1.10-1.24, respectively). Living alone was related to higher risk of CV death (1.68, 1.38-2.05) and the primary composite end-point (1.28, 1.11-1.48), whereas being married as compared with being widowed, was associated with lower risk of CV death (0.64, 0.49-0.82) and the primary composite end-point (0.81, 0.67-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Psychosocial stress, such as depressive symptoms, loss of interest, living alone and financial stress, were associated with increased CV mortality in patients with stable CHD despite optimal medical secondary prevention treatment. Secondary prevention of CHD should therefore focus also on psychosocial issues both in clinical management and in future clinical trials.

Are current clinical trials in diabetes addressing important issues in diabetes care?

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Clinical trials assessing interventions for treating and preventing diabetes mellitus and its complications are needed to inform evidence-based practice. To examine whether current studies adequately address these needs, we conducted a descriptive analysis of diabetes-related trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov from 2007 to 2010. METHODS: From a dataset including 96,346 studies registered in ClinicalTrials.gov downloaded on 27 September, 2010, a subset of 2,484 interventional trials was created by selecting trials with disease condition terms relevant to diabetes. RESULTS: Of the diabetes-related trials, 74.8% had a primarily therapeutic purpose while 10% were preventive. Listed interventions included drugs (63.1%) and behavioural (11.7%). Most trials were designed to enrol ≤ 500 (91.1%) or ≤ 100 (58.6%) participants, with mean/median times to completion of 1.8/1.4 years. Small percentages of trials targeted persons aged ≤ 18 years (3.7%) or ≥ 65 years (0.6%), while 30.8% excluded patients >65 years and the majority excluded those >75 years. Funding sources included industry (50.9%), NIH (7.5%) or other, with most being single-centre trials of other sponsorship (37.7%) or industry-funded multicentre studies (27.4%). A small number of trials (1.4%) listed primary outcomes including mortality or clinically significant cardiovascular complications. The distribution of trials by global region and US state does not correlate with prevalence of diabetes. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: The majority of diabetes-related trials include small numbers of participants, exclude those at the extremes of age, are of short duration, involve drug therapy rather than preventive or non-drug interventions and do not focus upon significant cardiovascular outcomes. Recently registered diabetes trials may not sufficiently address important diabetes care issues or involve affected populations.