Long-term safety and efficacy of anacetrapib in patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease.

AIMS: REVEAL was the first randomized controlled trial to demonstrate that adding cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor therapy to intensive statin therapy reduced the risk of major coronary events. We now report results from extended follow-up beyond the scheduled study treatment period. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 30 449 adults with prior atherosclerotic vascular disease were randomly allocated to anacetrapib 100 mg daily or matching placebo, in addition to open-label atorvastatin therapy. After stopping the randomly allocated treatment, 26 129 survivors entered a post-trial follow-up period, blind to their original treatment allocation. The primary outcome was first post-randomization major coronary event (i.e. coronary death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization) during the in-trial and post-trial treatment periods, with analysis by intention-to-treat. Allocation to anacetrapib conferred a 9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 3-15%; P = 0.004] proportional reduction in the incidence of major coronary events during the study treatment period (median 4.1 years). During extended follow-up (median 2.2 years), there was a further 20% (95% CI 10-29%; P < 0.001) reduction. Overall, there was a 12% (95% CI 7-17%, P < 0.001) proportional reduction in major coronary events during the overall follow-up period (median 6.3 years), corresponding to a 1.8% (95% CI 1.0-2.6%) absolute reduction. There were no significant effects on non-vascular mortality, site-specific cancer, or other serious adverse events. Morbidity follow-up was obtained for 25 784 (99%) participants. CONCLUSION: The beneficial effects of anacetrapib on major coronary events increased with longer follow-up, and no adverse effects emerged on non-vascular mortality or morbidity. These findings illustrate the importance of sufficiently long treatment and follow-up duration in randomized trials of lipid-modifying agents to assess their full benefits and potential harms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 48678192; ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT01252953; EudraCT No. 2010-023467-18.

Meta-analysis of the procedural risks of carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting over time.

BACKGROUND: Stroke/death rates within 30 days of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) in RCTs inform current clinical guidelines. However, the risks may have changed in recent years with wider use of effective stroke prevention therapies, especially statins, improved patient selection and growing operator expertise. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the procedural stroke/death risks from CEA and CAS have changed over time. METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase were searched systematically from inception to May 2016 for observational cohort studies of CEA and CAS. Studies included reported on more than 1000 patients, with 30-day outcomes after the procedure according to patients' symptom status (recent stroke or transient ischaemic attack). Restricted maximum likelihood random-effects and meta-regressions methods were used to synthesize procedural stroke/death rates of CEA and CAS according to year of study recruitment completion. RESULTS: Fifty-one studies, including 223 313 patients undergoing CEA and 72 961 undergoing CAS, were reviewed. Procedural stroke/death risks of CEA decreased over time in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Risks were substantially lower in studies completing recruitment in 2005 or later, both in symptomatic (5·11 per cent before 2005 versus 2·68 per cent from 2005 onwards; P = 0·002) and asymptomatic (3·17 versus 1·50 per cent; P < 0·001) patients. Procedural stroke/death rates of CAS did not change significantly over time (4·77 per cent among symptomatic and 2·59 per cent among asymptomatic patients). There was substantial heterogeneity in event rates and recruitment periods were long. CONCLUSIONS: Risks of procedural stroke/death following CEA appear to have decreased substantially. There was no evidence of a change in stroke/death rates following CAS.

The impact of diabetes-related complications on healthcare costs: new results from the UKPDS (UKPDS 84).

AIMS: To estimate the immediate and long-term inpatient and non-inpatient costs for Type 2 diabetes-related complications. METHODS: The costs of all consultations, visits, admissions and procedures associated with diabetes-related complications during UK Prospective Diabetes Study post-trial monitoring in the period 1997-2007 were estimated using hospitalization records for 2791 patients in England and resource use questionnaires that were administered to 3589 patients across the UK. RESULTS: The estimated (95% CI) inpatient care costs (in 2012 pounds sterling) in the event year for the example of a 60-year-old man were: non-fatal ischaemic heart disease £9767 (£7038-£12 696); amputation £9546 (£6416-£13 463); non-fatal stroke £6805 (£3856-£10 278); non-fatal myocardial infarction £6379 (£4290-£8339); fatal stroke £3954 (£2012-£6428); fatal ischaemic heart disease £3766 (£746-£5512); heart failure £3191 (£1678-4903); fatal myocardial infarction £1521 (£647-£2670); and blindness in one eye £1355 (£415-£2655). In subsequent years, estimated (95% CI) costs ranged from £1792 (£1060-£2943) for amputations to £453 (£315-£691) for blindness in one eye. Costs of non-inpatient healthcare in the event year were: amputation £2699 (£1409-£4126); blindness in one eye £1790 (£878-£3056); non-fatal stroke £1019 (£770-£1499); nonfatal myocardial infarction £1963 (£794-£1157); heart failure £979 (£708-£1344); non-fatal ischaemic heart disease £864 (£718-£1014); and cataract extraction £700 (£619-£780). In each subsequent year, non-inpatient costs ranged from £1611 (£1193-£2116) for amputations to £654 (£572-£799) for ischaemic heart disease. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetic complications are associated with substantial immediate and long-term healthcare costs. Our comprehensive new estimates of these costs, derived from detailed recent UK Prospective Diabetes Study post-trial data, should aid researchers and health policy analyses.

The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with statin therapy in people at low risk of vascular disease: meta-analysis of individual data from 27 randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Statins reduce LDL cholesterol and prevent vascular events, but their net effects in people at low risk of vascular events remain uncertain. METHODS: This meta-analysis included individual participant data from 22 trials of statin versus control (n=134,537; mean LDL cholesterol difference 1·08 mmol/L; median follow-up 4·8 years) and five trials of more versus less statin (n=39,612; difference 0·51 mmol/L; 5·1 years). Major vascular events were major coronary events (ie, non-fatal myocardial infarction or coronary death), strokes, or coronary revascularisations. Participants were separated into five categories of baseline 5-year major vascular event risk on control therapy (no statin or low-intensity statin) (<5%, ≥5% to <10%, ≥10% to <20%, ≥20% to <30%, ≥30%); in each, the rate ratio (RR) per 1·0 mmol/L LDL cholesterol reduction was estimated. FINDINGS: Reduction of LDL cholesterol with a statin reduced the risk of major vascular events (RR 0·79, 95% CI 0·77-0·81, per 1·0 mmol/L reduction), largely irrespective of age, sex, baseline LDL cholesterol or previous vascular disease, and of vascular and all-cause mortality. The proportional reduction in major vascular events was at least as big in the two lowest risk categories as in the higher risk categories (RR per 1·0 mmol/L reduction from lowest to highest risk: 0·62 [99% CI 0·47-0·81], 0·69 [99% CI 0·60-0·79], 0·79 [99% CI 0·74-0·85], 0·81 [99% CI 0·77-0·86], and 0·79 [99% CI 0·74-0·84]; trend p=0·04), which reflected significant reductions in these two lowest risk categories in major coronary events (RR 0·57, 99% CI 0·36-0·89, p=0·0012, and 0·61, 99% CI 0·50-0·74, p<0·0001) and in coronary revascularisations (RR 0·52, 99% CI 0·35-0·75, and 0·63, 99% CI 0·51-0·79; both p<0·0001). For stroke, the reduction in risk in participants with 5-year risk of major vascular events lower than 10% (RR per 1·0 mmol/L LDL cholesterol reduction 0·76, 99% CI 0·61-0·95, p=0·0012) was also similar to that seen in higher risk categories (trend p=0·3). In participants without a history of vascular disease, statins reduced the risks of vascular (RR per 1·0 mmol/L LDL cholesterol reduction 0·85, 95% CI 0·77-0·95) and all-cause mortality (RR 0·91, 95% CI 0·85-0·97), and the proportional reductions were similar by baseline risk. There was no evidence that reduction of LDL cholesterol with a statin increased cancer incidence (RR per 1·0 mmol/L LDL cholesterol reduction 1·00, 95% CI 0·96-1·04), cancer mortality (RR 0·99, 95% CI 0·93-1·06), or other non-vascular mortality. INTERPRETATION: In individuals with 5-year risk of major vascular events lower than 10%, each 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol produced an absolute reduction in major vascular events of about 11 per 1000 over 5 years. This benefit greatly exceeds any known hazards of statin therapy. Under present guidelines, such individuals would not typically be regarded as suitable for LDL-lowering statin therapy. The present report suggests, therefore, that these guidelines might need to be reconsidered. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation; UK Medical Research Council; Cancer Research UK; European Community Biomed Programme; Australian National Health and Medical Research Council; National Heart Foundation, Australia.