Milvexian vs apixaban for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: The LIBREXIA atrial fibrillation trial rationale and design.

BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants are the standard of care for stroke prevention in eligible patients with atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter; however, bleeding remains a significant concern, limiting their use. Milvexian is an oral Factor XIa inhibitor that may offer similar anticoagulant efficacy with less bleeding risk. METHODS: LIBREXIA AF (NCT05757869) is a global phase III, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, event-driven trial to compare milvexian with apixaban in participants with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter. Participants are randomly assigned to milvexian 100 mg or apixaban (5 mg or 2.5 mg per label indication) twice daily. The primary efficacy objective is to evaluate if milvexian is noninferior to apixaban for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism. The principal safety objective is to evaluate if milvexian is superior to apixaban in reducing the endpoint of International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) major bleeding events and the composite endpoint of ISTH major and clinically relevant nonmajor (CRNM) bleeding events. In total, 15,500 participants from approximately 1,000 sites in over 30 countries are planned to be enrolled. They will be followed until both 430 primary efficacy outcome events and 530 principal safety events are observed, which is estimated to take approximately 4 years. CONCLUSION: The LIBREXIA AF study will determine the efficacy and safety of the oral Factor XIa inhibitor milvexian compared with apixaban in participants with either atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05757869.

Incidence and predictors of post-thrombotic syndrome in patients with proximal DVT in a real-world setting: findings from the GARFIELD-VTE registry.

Although substantial progress has been made in the pathophysiology and management of the post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS), several aspects still need clarification. Among them, the incidence and severity of PTS in the real world, the risk factors for its development, the value of patient's self-evaluation, and the ability to identify patients at risk for severe PTS. Eligible participants (n = 1107) with proximal deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) from the global GARFIELD-VTE registry underwent conventional physician's evaluation for PTS 36 months after diagnosis of their DVT using the Villalta score. In addition, 856 patients completed a Villalta questionnaire at 24 months. Variable selection was performed using stepwise algorithm, and predictors of severe PTS were incorporated into a multivariable risk model. The optimistic adjusted c-index was calculated using bootstrapping techniques. Over 36-months, 27.8% of patients developed incident PTS (mild in 18.7%, moderate in 5.7%, severe in 3.4%). Patients with incident PTS were older, had a lower prevalence of transient risk factors of DVT and a higher prevalence of persistent risk factors of DVT. Self-assessment of overall PTS at 24 months showed an agreement of 63.4% with respect to physician's evaluations at 36 months. The severe PTS multivariable model provided an optimistic adjusted c-index of 0.68 (95% CI 0.59-0.77). Approximately a quarter of DVT patients experienced PTS over 36 months after VTE diagnosis. Patient's self-assessment after 24 months provided added value for estimating incident PTS over 36 months. Multivariable risk analysis allowed good discrimination for severe PTS.

Oral anticoagulation across diabetic subtypes in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation: A report from the GARFIELD-AF registry.

AIMS: This study aims to describe both management and prognosis of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF), overall as well as by antidiabetic treatment, and to assess the influence of oral anticoagulation (OAC) on outcomes by DM status. METHODS: The study population comprised 52 010 newly diagnosed patients with AF, 11 542 DM and 40 468 non-DM, enrolled in the GARFIELD-AF registry. Follow-up was truncated at 2 years after enrolment. Comparative effectiveness of OAC versus no OAC was assessed by DM status using a propensity score overlap weighting scheme and weights were applied to Cox models. RESULTS: Patients with DM [39.3% oral antidiabetic drug (OAD), 13.4% insulin ± OAD, 47.2% on no antidiabetic drug] had higher risk profile, OAC use, and rates of clinical outcomes compared with patients without DM. OAC use was associated in patients without DM and patients with DM with lower risk of all-cause mortality [hazard ratio 0.75 (0.69-0.83), 0.74 (0.64-0.86), respectively] and stroke/systemic embolism (SE) [0.69 (0.58-0.83), 0.70 (0.53-0.93), respectively]. The risk of major bleeding with OAC was similarly increased in patients without DM and those with DM [1.40 (1.14-1.71), 1.37 (0.99-1.89), respectively]. Patients with insulin-requiring DM had a higher risk of all-cause mortality and stroke/SE [1.91 (1.63-2.24)], [1.57 (1.06-2.35), respectively] compared with patients without DM, and experienced significant risk reductions of all-cause mortality and stroke/SE with OAC [0.73 (0.53-0.99); 0.50 (0.26-0.97), respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: In both patients with DM and patients without DM with AF, OAC was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality and stroke/SE. Patients with insulin-requiring DM derived significant benefit from OAC.

The importance of the design of observational studies in comparative effectiveness research: Lessons from the GARFIELD-AF and ORBIT-AF registries.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for estimating the effectiveness of a treatment. However, in many instances they are impractical to conduct because of time limitations, cost restrictions, or ethical reasons. As a consequence, non-randomized observational studies have an important role in comparative effectiveness and safety research since they can address issues that would not be possible using conventional RCT methodology. Observational studies can be strategically designed to reduce the risk of potential sources of bias by emulating the design principles of an equivalent but ideal randomized trial - the target trial - that would answer the research question of interest. In this article, we review some of the necessary components of observational studies required for valid causal inference within the framework of target trial emulation, so as to avoid common methodological pitfalls of study design. We discuss the assumptions of consistency, time-zero specification, exchangeability and positivity. To illustrate these concepts in a context where existing knowledge is well-established through clinical trials, we evaluate and compare the treatment effects of vitamin K antagonists (VKA) against no VKA (No VKA) on the treatment of atrial fibrillation from two real-world observational studies, namely the GARFIELD-AF and ORBIT-AF registries. Results are compared with those of published RCTs.

A treatment-specific marginal structural Cox model for the effect of treatment discontinuation.

Patients taking a prescribed medication often discontinue their treatment; however, this may negatively impact their health outcomes. If doctors had statistical evidence that discontinuing some prescribed medication shortened, on average, the time to a clinical event (e.g., death), they could use that knowledge to encourage their patients to stay on the prescribed treatment. We describe a treatment-specific marginal structural Cox model for estimation of the causal effect of treatment discontinuation on a survival endpoint. The effect of treatment discontinuation is quantified by the hazard ratio of the event hazard rate had the population followed the regime "take treatment a until it is discontinued at some time ν ," versus the event hazard rate had the population never discontinued treatment a . Valid causal analysis requires control for treatment confounding, regime confounding, and censoring due to regime violation. We propose new inverse probability of regime compliance weights to address the three issues simultaneously. We apply the framework to data from the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF) study. Patients from this study are treated with one of two types of oral anticoagulants (OACs). We test whether the causal effect of treatment discontinuation differs by type of OAC, and we also estimate the size and direction of the effect. We find evidence that OAC discontinuation increases the hazard for certain events, but we do not find evidence that this effect differs by treatment.

Early Risks of Death, Stroke/Systemic Embolism, and Major Bleeding in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation is associated with increased risks of death, stroke/systemic embolism, and bleeding (incurred by antithrombotic therapy), which may occur early after diagnosis. METHODS: We assessed the risk of early events (death, stroke/systemic embolism, and major bleeding) over 12 months and their relation to the time after diagnosis of atrial fibrillation in 52 014 patients prospectively enrolled in the GARFIELD-AF registry (Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation) between March 2010 and August 2016. RESULTS: Over 12 months, 2140 patients died (mortality rate, 4.3; 95% CI, 4.2-4.5 per 100 person-years), of whom 288 (13.5%) died in the first month (6.8; 95% CI, 6.1-7.6). Over 12 months, 657 patients had a stroke/systemic embolism (1.3; 95% CI, 1.2-1.4) and 411 had a major bleeding (0.8; 95% CI, 0.8-0.9). During the first month, the rates (per 100 person-years) of stroke/systemic embolism and major bleed were 2.3 (95% CI, 1.9-2.8) and 1.5 (95% CI, 1.2-1.9), respectively. The elevated 1-month mortality rate was mostly attributable to cardiovascular mortality (3.5; 95% CI, 3.0-4.1), in particular, heart failure, sudden death, and acute coronary syndromes (1.0 [95% CI, 0.8-1.4], 0.6 [95% CI, 0.4-0.8], and 0.5 [95% CI, 0.3-0.8], respectively). Age, heart failure, prior stroke, history of cirrhosis, vascular disease, moderate-to-severe kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, and living in North or Latin America were independent predictors of a higher risk of early death, whereas anticoagulation and living in Europe or Asia were independent predictors of a lower risk of early death. A predictive model developed for the 1-month risk of death had a C-statistic of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.78-0.83). CONCLUSIONS: The increased hazard of early events, in particular, cardiovascular mortality, in newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation points to the importance of comprehensive care for such patients and should alert clinicians to detect warning signs of possible early mortality. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01090362.

Frequency, Regional Variation, and Predictors of Undetermined Cause of Death in Cardiometabolic Clinical Trials: A Pooled Analysis of 9259 Deaths in 9 Trials.

BACKGROUND: Modern cardiometabolic clinical trials often include cardiovascular death as a component of a composite primary outcome, requiring central adjudication by a clinical events committee to classify cause of death. However, sometimes the cause of death cannot be determined from available data. The US Food and Drug Administration has indicated that this circumstance should occur only rarely, but its prevalence has not been formally assessed. METHODS: Data from 9 global clinical trials (2009-2017) with long-term follow-up and blinded, centrally adjudicated cause of death were used to calculate the proportion of deaths attributed to cardiovascular, noncardiovascular, or undetermined causes by therapeutic area (diabetes mellitus/pre-diabetes mellitus, stable atherosclerosis, atrial fibrillation, and acute coronary syndrome), region of patient enrollment, and year of trial manuscript publication. Patient- and trial-level variables associated with undetermined cause of death were identified using a logistic model. RESULTS: Across 127 049 enrolled participants from 9 trials, there were 9259 centrally adjudicated deaths: 5012 (54.1%) attributable to cardiovascular causes, 2800 (30.2%) attributable to noncardiovascular causes, and 1447 (15.6%) attributable to undetermined causes. There was variability in the proportion of deaths ascribed to undetermined causes by trial therapeutic area, region of enrollment, and year of trial manuscript publication. On multivariable analysis, acute coronary syndrome or atrial fibrillation trial (versus atherosclerotic vascular disease or diabetes mellitus/pre-diabetes mellitus), longer time from enrollment to death, more recent trial manuscript publication year, enrollment in North America (versus Western Europe), female sex, and older age were associated with greater likelihood of death of undetermined cause. CONCLUSIONS: In 9 cardiometabolic clinical trials with long-term follow-up, approximately 16% of deaths had undetermined causes. This provides a baseline for quality assessment of clinical trials and informs operational efforts to potentially reduce the frequency of undetermined deaths in future clinical research.

Guideline-directed therapies for comorbidities and clinical outcomes among individuals with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Comorbidities are common in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and affect prognosis, yet are often undertreated. However, contemporary rates of use of guideline-directed therapies (GDT) for non-AF comorbidities and their association with outcomes are not well described. METHODS: We used the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of AF (ORBIT-AF) to test the association between GDT for non-AF comorbidities and major adverse cardiac or neurovascular events (MACNE; cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke/thromboembolism, or new-onset heart failure), all-cause mortality, new-onset heart failure, and AF progression. Adjustment was performed using Cox proportional hazards models and logistic regression. RESULTS: Only 6,782 (33%) of the 20,434 patients eligible for 1 or more GDT for non-AF comorbidities received all indicated therapies. Use of all comorbidity-specific GDT was highest for patients with hyperlipidemia (75.6%) and lowest for those with diabetes mellitus (43.1%). Use of "all eligible" GDT was associated with a nonsignificant trend toward lower rates of MACNE (HR 0.90 [0.79-1.02]) and all-cause mortality (HR 0.90 [0.80-1.01]). Use of GDT for heart failure was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.77 [0.67-0.89]), and treatment of obstructive sleep apnea was associated with a lower risk of AF progression (OR 0.75 [0.62-0.90]). CONCLUSIONS: In AF patients, there is underuse of GDT for non-AF comorbidities. The association between GDT use and outcomes was strongest in heart failure and obstructive sleep apnea patients where use of GDT was associated with lower mortality and less AF progression.

Risk of major cardiovascular and neurologic events with obstructive sleep apnea among patients with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a known risk factor for atrial fibrillation (AF). However, it remains unclear whether OSA is independently associated with worse cardiovascular and neurological outcomes in patients with AF. METHODS: We used the ORBIT-AF I and ORBIT-AF II to conduct a retrospective cohort study of 22,760 patients with AF with and without OSA. Adjusted multivariable Cox proportional hazards models was used to determine whether OSA was associated with increased risk for major adverse cardiac and neurologic events (MACNEs) (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke/transient ischemic attack/non-central nervous system embolism (stroke/SE), and new-onset heart failure], combined and individually. RESULTS: A total of 4,045 (17.8%) patients had OSA at baseline. Median follow-up time was 1.5 (interquartile range: 1-2.2) years, and 1,895 patients experienced a MACNE. OSA patients were younger (median [interquartile range] 68 [61-75] years vs 74 [66-81] years), were more likely male (70.7% vs 55.3%), and had increased body mass index (median 34.6 kg/m2 [29.8-40.2] vs 28.7 kg/m2 [25.2-33.0]). Those with OSA had a higher prevalence of concomitant comorbidities such as diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and heart failure. OSA patients had higher use of antithrombotic therapy. After adjustment, the presence of OSA was significantly associated with MACNE (hazard ratio: 1.16 [95% CI: 1.03-1.31], P = .011). OSA was also an independent risk factor for stroke/SE beyond the CHA2DS2-VASc risk factors (HR: 1.38 [95% CI 1.12-1.70], P = .003) but not cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, new-onset heart failure, or major bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with AF, OSA is an independent risk factor for MACNE and, more specifically, stroke/SE.

Machine learning does not improve upon traditional regression in predicting outcomes in atrial fibrillation: an analysis of the ORBIT-AF and GARFIELD-AF registries.

AIMS: Prediction models for outcomes in atrial fibrillation (AF) are used to guide treatment. While regression models have been the analytic standard for prediction modelling, machine learning (ML) has been promoted as a potentially superior methodology. We compared the performance of ML and regression models in predicting outcomes in AF patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF) and Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD (GARFIELD-AF) are population-based registries that include 74 792 AF patients. Models were generated from potential predictors using stepwise logistic regression (STEP), random forests (RF), gradient boosting (GB), and two neural networks (NNs). Discriminatory power was highest for death [STEP area under the curve (AUC) = 0.80 in ORBIT-AF, 0.75 in GARFIELD-AF] and lowest for stroke in all models (STEP AUC = 0.67 in ORBIT-AF, 0.66 in GARFIELD-AF). The discriminatory power of the ML models was similar or lower than the STEP models for most outcomes. The GB model had a higher AUC than STEP for death in GARFIELD-AF (0.76 vs. 0.75), but only nominally, and both performed similarly in ORBIT-AF. The multilayer NN had the lowest discriminatory power for all outcomes. The calibration of the STEP modelswere more aligned with the observed events for all outcomes. In the cross-registry models, the discriminatory power of the ML models was similar or lower than the STEP for most cases. CONCLUSION: When developed from two large, community-based AF registries, ML techniques did not improve prediction modelling of death, major bleeding, or stroke.

Standardized classification and framework for reporting, interpreting, and analysing medication non-adherence in cardiovascular clinical trials: a consensus report from the Non-adherence Academic Research Consortium (NARC).

Non-adherence has been well recognized for years to be a common issue that significantly impacts clinical outcomes and health care costs. Medication adherence is remarkably low even in the controlled environment of clinical trials where it has potentially complex major implications. Collection of non-adherence data diverge markedly among cardiovascular randomized trials and, even where collected, is rarely incorporated in the statistical analysis to test the consistency of the primary endpoint(s). The imprecision introduced by the inconsistent assessment of non-adherence in clinical trials might confound the estimate of the calculated efficacy of the study drug. Hence, clinical trials may not accurately answer the scientific question posed by regulators, who seek an accurate estimate of the true efficacy and safety of treatment, or the question posed by payers, who want a reliable estimate of the effectiveness of treatment in the marketplace after approval. The Non-adherence Academic Research Consortium is a collaboration among leading academic research organizations, representatives from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and physician-scientists from the USA and Europe. One in-person meeting was held in Madrid, Spain, culminating in a document describing consensus recommendations for reporting, collecting, and analysing adherence endpoints across clinical trials. The adoption of these recommendations will afford robustness and consistency in the comparative safety and effectiveness evaluation of investigational drugs from early development to post-marketing approval studies. These principles may be useful for regulatory assessment, as well as for monitoring local and regional outcomes to guide quality improvement initiatives.

Peripheral blood metabolite profiles associated with new onset atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral blood metabolite profiles have yielded mechanistic insights into various cardiovascular disease states. We hypothesized that peripheral blood metabolite profiles would be associated with new onset atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS AND RESULTS: The study population comprised 1892 patients without AF at baseline, who, as part the MURDOCK Cardiovascular Disease Study molecular profiling cohort (n = 2023), had previously had determination of levels of 69 metabolites from frozen, fasting plasma specimens obtained during coronary angiography. We used Cox proportional hazards models to examine the association of 13 uncorrelated metabolite factors created from these data using principal components analysis (PCA) with new occurrences of AF during a median follow up of 2.8 (0.1-4.9) years. A total of 233 patients developed new AF (12.3%) during follow up. Patients with new onset AF were older (median 67 vs. 60 years); more often white (82 vs. 71%) and male (68 vs. 60%), and had more comorbidities than those who did not develop AF. After adjustment, PCA factor 1 (medium chain acylcarnitines; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.11 [1.01-1.22]), factor 2 (short chain dicarboxylacylcarnitines; HR: 1.21 [1.09-1.34]) and factor 5 (long chain acylcarnitines; HR: 1.19 [1.06-1.34]) were associated with new onset AF. CONCLUSION: Metabolite profiles were associated with new onset AF among patients referred for coronary angiography. Validation of these observations in broader patient populations may provide better mechanistic insight into the development of AF, and may provide new opportunities for prevention and treatment.

Treatment of atrial fibrillation with concomitant coronary or peripheral artery disease: Results from the outcomes registry for better informed treatment of atrial fibrillation II.

BACKGROUND: Treatment patterns and outcomes of individuals with vascular disease who have new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) are not well characterized. METHODS: Among patients with new-onset AF, we analyzed treatment and outcomes in those with or without vascular disease in the ORBIT-AF II registry. Vascular disease was defined as coronary disease with or without myocardial infarction (MI) or revascularization, or peripheral artery disease. The primary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular or neurological events (MACNE) and major bleeding. Cox proportional hazard models were used to adjust the difference in patient characteristics. RESULTS: Overall 1920 of 6203 (31.0%) of new-onset AF had vascular disease. In patients with vascular disease, 62.2% of those were treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and 23.4% with warfarin. Dual therapy and triple therapy were used in 36.9% and 4.9%, respectively. Vascular disease patients had increased risk of MACNE (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.83 [95%CIs 1.32-2.55]), but not major bleeding (aHR 1.24 [0.95-1.63]). Among patients with vascular disease, relative to those on warfarin, those treated with DOACs had similar risk for MACNE (aHR 1.20 [0.77-1.87]) but lower risks for bleeding, although it did not reach statistical significance (aHR 0.70 [0.43-1.15]). Concomitant antiplatelet therapy was associated with higher bleeding (aHR 2.27 [1.38-3.73]) with no apparent reduction in MACNE (aHR 1.50 [1.00-2.25]). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with AF and vascular disease were managed with oral anticoagulation. About half of them were also treated with concomitant antiplatelet therapy, which was associated with increased risk of bleeding, without evidence of improved cardiovascular outcomes.

Predictors of NOAC versus VKA use for stroke prevention in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation: Results from GARFIELD-AF.

INTRODUCTION: A principal aim of the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF) was to document changes in treatment practice for patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation during an era when non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) were becoming more widely adopted. In these analyses, the key factors which determined the choice between NOACs and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are explored. METHODS: Logistic least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression determined predictors of NOAC and VKA use. Data were collected from 24,137 patients who were initiated on AC ±â€¯antiplatelet (AP) therapy (NOAC [51.4%] or VKA [48.6%]) between April 2013 and August 2016. RESULTS: The most significant predictors of AC therapy were country, enrolment year, care setting at diagnosis, AF type, concomitant AP, and kidney disease. Patients enrolled in emergency care or in the outpatient setting were more likely to receive a NOAC than those enrolled in hospital (OR 1.16 [95% CI: 1.04-1.30], OR: 1.15 [95% CI: 1.05-1.25], respectively). NOAC prescribing seemed to be favored in lower-risk groups, namely, patients with paroxysmal AF, normotensive patients, and those with moderate alcohol consumption, but also the elderly and patients with acute coronary syndrome. By contrast, VKAs were preferentially used in patients with permanent AF, moderate to severe kidney disease, heart failure, vascular disease, and diabetes and with concomitant AP. CONCLUSION: GARFIELD-AF data highlight marked heterogeneity in stroke prevention strategies globally. Physicians are adopting an individualized approach to stroke prevention where NOACs are favored in patients with a lower stroke risk but also in the elderly and patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Sitagliptin does not reduce the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure following myocardial infarction in patients with diabetes: observations from TECOS.

BACKGROUND: To examine the effects of the DPP-4i sitagliptin on CV outcomes during and after incident MI in the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS). METHODS: TECOS randomized 14,671 participants with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) to sitagliptin or placebo, in addition to usual care. For those who had a within-trial MI, we analyzed case fatality, and for those with a nonfatal MI, we examined a composite cardiovascular (CV) outcome (CV death or hospitalization for heart failure [hHF]) by treatment group, using Cox proportional hazards models left-censored at the time of the first within-trial MI, without and with adjustment for potential confounders, in intention-to-treat analyses. RESULTS: During TECOS, 616 participants had ≥ 1 MI (sitagliptin group 300, placebo group 316, HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.81-1.11, P = 0.49), of which 25 were fatal [11 and 14, respectively]). Of the 591 patients with a nonfatal MI, 87 (15%) died subsequently, with 66 (11%) being CV deaths, and 57 (10%) experiencing hHF. The composite outcome occurred in 58 (20.1%; 13.9 per 100 person-years) sitagliptin group participants and 50 (16.6%; 11.7 per 100 person-years) placebo group participants (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.83-1.77, P = 0.32, adjusted HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.83-1.82, P = 0.31). On-treatment sensitivity analyses also showed no significant between-group differences in post-MI outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes and ASCVD experiencing an MI, sitagliptin did not reduce subsequent risk of CV death or hHF, contrary to expectations derived from preclinical animal models. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov no. NCT00790205.

Characteristics of patients with atrial fibrillation prescribed antiplatelet monotherapy compared with those on anticoagulants: insights from the GARFIELD-AF registry.

Aims: Current atrial fibrillation (AF) guidelines discourage antiplatelet (AP) monotherapy as alternative to anticoagulants (ACs). Why AP only is still used is largely unknown. Methods and results: Factors associated with AP monotherapy prescription were analysed in GARFIELD-AF, a registry of patients with newly diagnosed (≤6 weeks) AF and ≥1 investigator-determined stroke risk factor. We analysed 51 270 patients from 35 countries enrolled into five sequential cohorts between 2010 and 2016. Overall, 20.7% of patients received AP monotherapy, 52.1% AC monotherapy, and 14.1% AP + AC. Most AP monotherapy (82.5%) and AC monotherapy (86.8%) patients were CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2. Compared with patients on AC monotherapy, AP monotherapy patients were frequently Chinese (vs. Caucasian, odds ratio 2.73) and more likely to have persistent AF (1.32), history of coronary artery disease (2.41) or other vascular disease (1.67), bleeding (2.11), or dementia (1.81). The odds for AP monotherapy increased with 5 years of age increments for patients ≥75 years (1.24) but decreased with age increments for patients 55-75 years (0.86). Antiplatelet monotherapy patients were less likely to have paroxysmal (0.67) or permanent AF (0.57), history of embolism (0.56), or alcohol use (0.90). With each cohort, AP monotherapy declined (P<0.0001), especially non-indicated use. AP + AC and no antithrombotic therapy were unchanged. However, even in 2015 and 2016, about 50% of AP-treated patients had no indication except AF (71% were CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2). Conclusion: Prescribing AP monotherapy in newly diagnosed AF has declined, but even nowadays a substantial proportion of AP-treated patients with AF have no indication for AP. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01090362.

Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: International Insights From the TECOS Trial (Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes With Sitagliptin).

BACKGROUND: Intensive risk factor modification significantly improves outcomes for patients with diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease. However, the degree to which secondary prevention treatment goals are achieved in international clinical practice is unknown. METHODS: Attainment of 5 secondary prevention parameters-aspirin use, lipid control (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <70 mg/dL or statin therapy), blood pressure control (<140 mm Hg systolic, <90 mm Hg diastolic), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker use, and nonsmoking status-was evaluated among 13 616 patients from 38 countries with diabetes mellitus and known cardiovascular disease at entry into TECOS (Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes With Sitagliptin). Logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between individual and regional factors and secondary prevention achievement at baseline. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to determine the association between baseline secondary prevention achievement and cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. RESULTS: Overall, 29.9% of patients with diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease achieved all 5 secondary prevention parameters at baseline, although 71.8% achieved at least 4 parameters. North America had the highest proportion (41.2%), whereas Western Europe, Eastern Europe, and Latin America had proportions of ≈25%. Individually, blood pressure control (57.9%) had the lowest overall attainment, whereas nonsmoking status had the highest (89%). Over a median 3.0 years of follow-up, a higher baseline secondary prevention score was associated with improved outcomes in a step-wise graded relationship (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.77 for those patients achieving all 5 measures versus those achieving ≤2). CONCLUSIONS: In an international trial population, significant opportunities exist to improve the quality of cardiovascular secondary prevention care among patients with diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease, which in turn could lead to reduced risk of downstream cardiovascular events. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00790205.

Safety of ticagrelor in patients with baseline conduction abnormalities: A PLATO (Study of Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes) analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although bradyarrhythmias have been observed with ticagrelor and its use with advanced atrioventricular block is not recommended, questions arise regarding its use in patients with mild conduction abnormalities. The objectives were to compare rates of clinically relevant arrhythmias in relation to any mild baseline conduction abnormality in patients with acute coronary syndrome randomized to ticagrelor versus clopidogrel. METHODS: We included all subjects in the electrocardiographic (ECG) substudy of the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes trial, excluding those with missing baseline ECG or with a pacemaker at baseline (N = 15,460). Conduction abnormality was defined as sinus bradycardia, first-degree atrioventricular block, hemiblock, or bundle-branch block. The primary arrhythmic outcome was the composite of any symptomatic brady- or tachyarrhythmia, permanent pacemaker placement, or cardiac arrest through 12 months. RESULTS: Patients with baseline conduction abnormalities (n = 4,256, 27.5%) were older and more likely to experience the primary arrhythmic outcome. There were no differences by ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in the composite arrhythmic end point in those with baseline conduction disease (1-year cumulative incidence rate: 17% for both study arms; hazard ratio: 0.99 [0.86-1.15]) or without baseline conduction disease (1-year cumulative incidence rate: clopidogrel 12.8% vs ticagrelor 12.4%; hazard ratio: 0.98 (0.88-1.09). There were also no statistically significant differences between ticagrelor and clopidogrel in the rates of bradycardic (or any individual arrhythmic) events in patients with baseline conduction abnormalities. CONCLUSIONS: Ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel did not increase arrhythmic events even in subjects with acute coronary syndrome who present with mild conduction abnormalities on their baseline ECG.

Discharge timing and outcomes after uncomplicated non-ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Length of stay after non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) continues to decrease, but information to guide duration of hospitalization is limited. METHODS: We used landmark analyses, in which the landmark defined potential days of discharge, to estimate complication rates on the first day the patient would have been out of the hospital, and estimated associations between timing of discharge and 30-day and 1-year event-free survival after discharge among NSTEMI patients. RESULTS: Among 20,410 NSTEMI patients, median length of stay was 7 (4, 12) days; 3,209 (15.7%) experienced a cardiac complication on days 0 to 2 and 1,322 (6.5%) were discharged without complications during hospital days 0 to 2. At the start of day 3, 15,879 patients (77.8%) were still hospitalized without complications. Of these, 1,689 (10.6%) were discharged event-free on day 3. Adjusted event-free survival rates of death or myocardial infarction from day 4 to 30 days after among the 1,689 patients was 99.1% compared with 93.1% for the 14,190 who remained hospitalized at the end of day 3. For 1-year mortality, these rates were 98.1% and 96.4%, respectively. Among 13,334 patients hospitalized without complications at the start of day 4, 1,706 were discharged event-free that day. Adjusted survival rates among these patients, compared with those still hospitalized at the end of day 4, were 98.0% versus 93.7% for 30-day death or myocardial infarction and 97.8% versus 96.1% for 1-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with NSTEMI who had no serious complications during the first 2 hospital days were at low risk of subsequent short- and intermediate-term death or ischemic events.

Incidence, timing, and type of first and recurrent ischemic events in patients with and without peripheral artery disease after an acute coronary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) are known to have an increased risk of ischemic cardiovascular events. However, the influence of concomitant PAD on first and subsequent recurrent ischemic events after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains poorly characterized. METHODS: We analyzed the combined data set from 4 randomized trials (PLATO, APPRAISE-2, TRA-CER, and TRILOGY ACS) in ACS for a follow-up length of 1 year. Using multivariable regression, we examined the association between PAD and major adverse cardiovascular events, a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Among patients with a nonfatal first event, we evaluated the incidence and type of a second recurrent event. RESULTS: A total of 4,098 of 48,094 (8.5%) post-ACS patients had a history of PAD. The unadjusted frequency of major adverse cardiovascular events was 2-fold higher in patients with PAD (14.3% vs 7.5%) over a median (25th-75th) follow-up of 353 (223-365) days with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.63 (95% CI: 1.48-1.78; P < .001). The frequency of recurrent ischemic events among those patients with a first, nonfatal event was higher among those with PAD (40.0% vs 27.7%). The relative frequency of each event type (cardiovascular death, noncardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) within first and subsequent ischemic events was similar regardless of PAD status at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PAD have a significantly higher risk of first and recurrent ischemic events in the post-ACS setting. These findings highlight the opportunity for improved treatments in patients with PAD who experience an ACS.