Empagliflozin after Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin improves cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure, patients with type 2 diabetes who are at high cardiovascular risk, and patients with chronic kidney disease. The safety and efficacy of empagliflozin in patients who have had acute myocardial infarction are unknown. METHODS: In this event-driven, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients who had been hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction and were at risk for heart failure to receive empagliflozin at a dose of 10 mg daily or placebo in addition to standard care within 14 days after admission. The primary end point was a composite of hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause as assessed in a time-to-first-event analysis. RESULTS: A total of 3260 patients were assigned to receive empagliflozin and 3262 to receive placebo. During a median follow-up of 17.9 months, a first hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause occurred in 267 patients (8.2%) in the empagliflozin group and in 298 patients (9.1%) in the placebo group, with incidence rates of 5.9 and 6.6 events, respectively, per 100 patient-years (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.06; P = 0.21). With respect to the individual components of the primary end point, a first hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 118 patients (3.6%) in the empagliflozin group and in 153 patients (4.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.98), and death from any cause occurred in 169 (5.2%) and 178 (5.5%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.19). Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of empagliflozin and were similar in the two trial groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients at increased risk for heart failure after acute myocardial infarction, treatment with empagliflozin did not lead to a significantly lower risk of a first hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause than placebo. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly; EMPACT-MI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04509674.).

Apolipoprotein A1 Infusions and Cardiovascular Outcomes after Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular events frequently recur after acute myocardial infarction, and low cholesterol efflux - a process mediated by apolipoprotein A1, which is the main protein in high-density lipoprotein - has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. CSL112 is human apolipoprotein A1 derived from plasma that increases cholesterol efflux capacity. Whether infusions of CSL112 can reduce the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events after acute myocardial infarction is unclear. METHODS: We conducted an international, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients with acute myocardial infarction, multivessel coronary artery disease, and additional cardiovascular risk factors. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either four weekly infusions of 6 g of CSL112 or matching placebo, with the first infusion administered within 5 days after the first medical contact for the acute myocardial infarction. The primary end point was a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes from randomization through 90 days of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 18,219 patients were included in the trial (9112 in the CSL112 group and 9107 in the placebo group). There was no significant difference between the groups in the risk of a primary end-point event at 90 days of follow-up (439 patients [4.8%] in the CSL112 group vs. 472 patients [5.2%] in the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.05; P = 0.24), at 180 days of follow-up (622 patients [6.9%] vs. 683 patients [7.6%]; hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.01), or at 365 days of follow-up (885 patients [9.8%] vs. 944 patients [10.5%]; hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.02). The percentage of patients with adverse events was similar in the two groups; a higher number of hypersensitivity events was reported in the CSL112 group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with acute myocardial infarction, multivessel coronary artery disease, and additional cardiovascular risk factors, four weekly infusions of CSL112 did not result in a lower risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes than placebo through 90 days. (Funded by CSL Behring; AEGIS-II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03473223.).

Restrictive or Liberal Transfusion Strategy in Myocardial Infarction and Anemia.

BACKGROUND: A strategy of administering a transfusion only when the hemoglobin level falls below 7 or 8 g per deciliter has been widely adopted. However, patients with acute myocardial infarction may benefit from a higher hemoglobin level. METHODS: In this phase 3, interventional trial, we randomly assigned patients with myocardial infarction and a hemoglobin level of less than 10 g per deciliter to a restrictive transfusion strategy (hemoglobin cutoff for transfusion, 7 or 8 g per deciliter) or a liberal transfusion strategy (hemoglobin cutoff, <10 g per deciliter). The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction or death at 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 3504 patients were included in the primary analysis. The mean (±SD) number of red-cell units that were transfused was 0.7±1.6 in the restrictive-strategy group and 2.5±2.3 in the liberal-strategy group. The mean hemoglobin level was 1.3 to 1.6 g per deciliter lower in the restrictive-strategy group than in the liberal-strategy group on days 1 to 3 after randomization. A primary-outcome event occurred in 295 of 1749 patients (16.9%) in the restrictive-strategy group and in 255 of 1755 patients (14.5%) in the liberal-strategy group (risk ratio modeled with multiple imputation for incomplete follow-up, 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99 to 1.34; P = 0.07). Death occurred in 9.9% of the patients with the restrictive strategy and in 8.3% of the patients with the liberal strategy (risk ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.47); myocardial infarction occurred in 8.5% and 7.2% of the patients, respectively (risk ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.49). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute myocardial infarction and anemia, a liberal transfusion strategy did not significantly reduce the risk of recurrent myocardial infarction or death at 30 days. However, potential harms of a restrictive transfusion strategy cannot be excluded. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; MINT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02981407.).

Relating Lipoprotein(a) Concentrations to Cardiovascular Event Risk After Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Comparison of 3 Tests.

BACKGROUND: Lipoprotein(a) is a risk factor for cardiovascular events and modifies the benefit of PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitors. Lipoprotein(a) concentration can be measured with immunoassays reporting mass or molar concentration or a reference measurement system using mass spectrometry. Whether the relationships between lipoprotein(a) concentrations and cardiovascular events in a high-risk cohort differ across lipoprotein(a) methods is unknown. We compared the prognostic and predictive value of these types of lipoprotein(a) tests for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). METHODS: The ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab) compared the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab with placebo in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome. We compared risk of a MACE in the placebo group and MACE risk reduction with alirocumab according to baseline lipoprotein(a) concentration measured by Siemens N-latex nephelometric immunoassay (IA-mass; mg/dL), Roche Tina-Quant turbidimetric immunoassay (IA-molar; nmol/L), and a noncommercial mass spectrometry-based test (MS; nmol/L). Lipoprotein(a) values were transformed into percentiles for comparative modeling. Natural cubic splines estimated continuous relationships between baseline lipoprotein(a) and outcomes in each treatment group. Event rates were also determined across baseline lipoprotein(a) quartiles defined by each assay. RESULTS: Among 11 970 trial participants with results from all 3 tests, baseline median (Q1, Q3) lipoprotein(a) concentrations were 21.8 (6.9, 60.0) mg/dL, 45.0 (13.2, 153.8) nmol/L, and 42.2 (14.3, 143.1) nmol/L for IA-mass, IA-molar, and MS, respectively. The strongest correlation was between IA-molar and MS (r=0.990), with nominally weaker correlations between IA-mass and MS (r=0.967) and IA-mass and IA-molar (r=0.972). Relationships of lipoprotein(a) with MACE risk in the placebo group were nearly identical with each test, with estimated cumulative incidences differing by ≤0.4% across lipoprotein(a) percentiles, and all were incrementally prognostic after accounting for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (all spline P≤0.0003). Predicted alirocumab treatment effects were also nearly identical for each of the 3 tests, with estimated treatment hazard ratios differing by ≤0.07 between tests across percentiles and nominally less relative risk reduction by alirocumab at lower percentiles for all 3 tests. Absolute risk reduction with alirocumab increased with increasing lipoprotein(a) measured by each test, with significant linear trends across quartiles. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with recent acute coronary syndrome, 3 lipoprotein(a) tests were similarly prognostic for MACE in the placebo group and predictive of MACE reductions with alirocumab at the cohort level. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01663402.

Demystifying the Contemporary Role of 12-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Acute Coronary Syndrome.

For almost two decades, 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has been the only class I recommendation on DAPT in American and European guidelines, which has resulted in 12-month durations of DAPT therapy being the most frequently implemented in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) across the globe. Twelve-month DAPT was initially grounded in the results of the CURE (Clopidogrel in Unstable Angina to Prevent Recurrent Events) trial, which, by design, studied DAPT versus no DAPT rather than the optimal DAPT duration. The average DAPT duration in this study was 9 months, not 12 months. Subsequent ACS studies, which were not designed to assess DAPT duration, rather its composition (aspirin with prasugrel or ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel) were further interpreted as supportive evidence for 12-month DAPT duration. In these studies, the median DAPT duration was 9 or 15 months for ticagrelor and prasugrel, respectively. Several subsequent studies questioned the 12-month regimen and suggested that DAPT duration should either be fewer than 12 months in patients at high bleeding risk or more than 12 months in patients at high ischemic risk who can safely tolerate the treatment. Bleeding, rather than ischemic risk assessment, has emerged as a treatment modifier for maximizing the net clinical benefit of DAPT, due to excessive bleeding and no clear benefit of prolonged treatment regimens in high bleeding risk patients. Multiple DAPT de-escalation treatment strategies, including switching from prasugrel or ticagrelor to clopidogrel, reducing the dose of prasugrel or ticagrelor, and shortening DAPT duration while maintaining monotherapy with ticagrelor, have been consistently shown to reduce bleeding without increasing fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular or cerebral ischemic risks compared with 12-month DAPT. However, 12-month DAPT remains the only class-I DAPT recommendation for patients with ACS despite the lack of prospectively established evidence, leading to unnecessary and potentially harmful overtreatment in many patients. It is time for clinical practice and guideline recommendations to be updated to reflect the totality of the evidence regarding the optimal DAPT duration in ACS.

Defining Strategies of Modulation of Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Consensus Document from the Academic Research Consortium.

Antiplatelet therapy is the mainstay of pharmacologic treatment to prevent thrombotic or ischemic events in patients with coronary artery disease treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and those treated medically for an acute coronary syndrome. The use of antiplatelet therapy comes at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding complications. Defining the optimal intensity of platelet inhibition according to the clinical presentation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and individual patient factors is a clinical challenge. Modulation of antiplatelet therapy is a medical action that is frequently performed to balance the risk of thrombotic or ischemic events and the risk of bleeding. This aim may be achieved by reducing (ie, de-escalation) or increasing (ie, escalation) the intensity of platelet inhibition by changing the type, dose, or number of antiplatelet drugs. Because de-escalation or escalation can be achieved in different ways, with a number of emerging approaches, confusion arises with terminologies that are often used interchangeably. To address this issue, this Academic Research Consortium collaboration provides an overview and definitions of different strategies of antiplatelet therapy modulation for patients with coronary artery disease, including but not limited to those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and consensus statements on standardized definitions.

Sotagliflozin in Patients with Diabetes and Recent Worsening Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes among patients with stable heart failure. However, the safety and efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors when initiated soon after an episode of decompensated heart failure are unknown. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, double-blind trial in which patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who were recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure were randomly assigned to receive sotagliflozin or placebo. The primary end point was the total number of deaths from cardiovascular causes and hospitalizations and urgent visits for heart failure (first and subsequent events). The trial ended early because of loss of funding from the sponsor. RESULTS: A total of 1222 patients underwent randomization (608 to the sotagliflozin group and 614 to the placebo group) and were followed for a median of 9.0 months; the first dose of sotagliflozin or placebo was administered before discharge in 48.8% and a median of 2 days after discharge in 51.2%. Among these patients, 600 primary end-point events occurred (245 in the sotagliflozin group and 355 in the placebo group). The rate (the number of events per 100 patient-years) of primary end-point events was lower in the sotagliflozin group than in the placebo group (51.0 vs. 76.3; hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 0.85; P<0.001). The rate of death from cardiovascular causes was 10.6 in the sotagliflozin group and 12.5 in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.22); the rate of death from any cause was 13.5 in the sotagliflozin group and 16.3 in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.14). Diarrhea was more common with sotagliflozin than with placebo (6.1% vs. 3.4%), as was severe hypoglycemia (1.5% vs. 0.3%). The percentage of patients with hypotension was similar in the sotagliflozin group and the placebo group (6.0% and 4.6%, respectively), as was the percentage with acute kidney injury (4.1% and 4.4%, respectively). The benefits of sotagliflozin were consistent in the prespecified subgroups of patients stratified according to the timing of the first dose. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with diabetes and recent worsening heart failure, sotagliflozin therapy, initiated before or shortly after discharge, resulted in a significantly lower total number of deaths from cardiovascular causes and hospitalizations and urgent visits for heart failure than placebo. (Funded by Sanofi and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals; SOLOIST-WHF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03521934.).

Sotagliflozin in Patients with Diabetes and Chronic Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors such as sotagliflozin in preventing cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes with chronic kidney disease with or without albuminuria have not been well studied. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind trial in which patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (glycated hemoglobin level, ≥7%), chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 25 to 60 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area), and risks for cardiovascular disease were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive sotagliflozin or placebo. The primary end point was changed during the trial to the composite of the total number of deaths from cardiovascular causes, hospitalizations for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure. The trial ended early owing to loss of funding. RESULTS: Of 19,188 patients screened, 10,584 were enrolled, with 5292 assigned to the sotagliflozin group and 5292 assigned to the placebo group, and followed for a median of 16 months. The rate of primary end-point events was 5.6 events per 100 patient-years in the sotagliflozin group and 7.5 events per 100 patient-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.88; P<0.001). The rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes per 100 patient-years was 2.2 with sotagliflozin and 2.4 with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.12; P = 0.35). For the original coprimary end point of the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, the hazard ratio was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.99); for the original coprimary end point of the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure, the hazard ratio was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.66 to 0.91). Diarrhea, genital mycotic infections, volume depletion, and diabetic ketoacidosis were more common with sotagliflozin than with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease, with or without albuminuria, sotagliflozin resulted in a lower risk of the composite of deaths from cardiovascular causes, hospitalizations for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure than placebo but was associated with adverse events. (Funded by Sanofi and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals; SCORED ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03315143.).

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.

Apolipoprotein B, Residual Cardiovascular Risk After Acute Coronary Syndrome, and Effects of Alirocumab.

BACKGROUND: Apolipoprotein B (apoB) provides an integrated measure of atherogenic risk. Whether apoB levels and apoB lowering hold incremental predictive information on residual risk after acute coronary syndrome beyond that provided by low-density lipoprotein cholesterol is uncertain. METHODS: The ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab) compared the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor alirocumab with placebo in 18 924 patients with recent acute coronary syndrome and elevated atherogenic lipoproteins despite optimized statin therapy. Primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; coronary heart disease death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal/nonfatal ischemic stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina). Associations between baseline apoB or apoB at 4 months and MACE were assessed in adjusted Cox proportional hazards and propensity score-matched models. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 2.8 years. In proportional hazards analysis in the placebo group, MACE incidence increased across increasing baseline apoB strata (3.2 [95% CI, 2.9-3.6], 4.0 [95% CI, 3.6-4.5], and 5.5 [95% CI, 5.0-6.1] events per 100 patient-years in strata <75, 75-<90, ≥90 mg/dL, respectively; Ptrend<0.0001) and after adjustment for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (Ptrend=0.035). Higher baseline apoB stratum was associated with greater relative (Ptrend<0.0001) and absolute reduction in MACE with alirocumab versus placebo. In the alirocumab group, the incidence of MACE after month 4 decreased monotonically across decreasing achieved apoB strata (4.26 [95% CI, 3.78-4.79], 3.09 [95% CI, 2.69-3.54], and 2.41 [95% CI, 2.11-2.76] events per 100 patient-years in strata ≥50, >35-<50, and ≤35 mg/dL, respectively). Compared with propensity score-matched patients from the placebo group, treatment hazard ratios for alirocumab also decreased monotonically across achieved apoB strata. Achieved apoB was predictive of MACE after adjustment for achieved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol or non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol but not vice versa. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with recent acute coronary syndrome and elevated atherogenic lipoproteins, MACE increased across baseline apoB strata. Alirocumab reduced MACE across all strata of baseline apoB, with larger absolute reductions in patients with higher baseline levels. Lower achieved apoB was associated with lower risk of MACE, even after accounting for achieved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol or non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, indicating that apoB provides incremental information. Achievement of apoB levels as low as ≤35 mg/dL may reduce lipoprotein-attributable residual risk after acute coronary syndrome. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01663402.

Association of Bleeding Severity With Mortality in Extended Thromboprophylaxis of Medically Ill Patients in the MAGELLAN and MARINER Trials.

BACKGROUND: Extended thromboprophylaxis has not been widely implemented in acutely ill medical patients because of bleeding concerns. The MAGELLAN (Multicenter, Randomized, Parallel Group Efficacy and Safety Study for the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Hospitalized Medically Ill Patients Comparing Rivaroxaban With Enoxaparin) and MARINER (Medically Ill Patient Assessment of Rivaroxaban Versus Placebo in Reducing Post-Discharge Venous Thrombo-Embolism Risk) trials evaluated whether rivaroxaban compared with enoxaparin or placebo could prevent venous thromboembolism without increased bleeding. We hypothesized that patients with major bleeding but not those with nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding would be at an increased risk of all-cause mortality (ACM). METHODS: We evaluated all bleeding events in patients taking at least 1 dose of study drug and their association with ACM in 4 mutually exclusive groups: (1) no bleeding, or first event was (2) nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding, (3) major bleeding, or (4) trivial bleeding. Using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for differences in baseline characteristics associated with ACM, we assessed the risk of ACM after such events. RESULTS: Compared with patients with no bleeding, the risk of ACM for patients with nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding was not increased in MARINER (hazard ratio, 0.43; P=0.235) but was increased in MAGELLAN (hazard ratio, 1.74; P=0.021). Major bleeding was associated with a higher incidence of ACM in both studies, whereas trivial bleeding was not associated with ACM in either study. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with major bleeding had an increased risk of ACM, whereas nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding was not consistently associated with an increased risk of death. These results inform the risk-benefit calculus of extended thromboprophylaxis in medically ill patients. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: MAGELLAN, NCT00571649. URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: MARINER, NCT02111564.

A Comparison of Two LDL Cholesterol Targets after Ischemic Stroke.

BACKGROUND: The use of intensive lipid-lowering therapy by means of statin medications is recommended after transient ischemic attack (TIA) and ischemic stroke of atherosclerotic origin. The target level for low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol to reduce cardiovascular events after stroke has not been well studied. METHODS: In this parallel-group trial conducted in France and South Korea, we randomly assigned patients with ischemic stroke in the previous 3 months or a TIA within the previous 15 days to a target LDL cholesterol level of less than 70 mg per deciliter (1.8 mmol per liter) (lower-target group) or to a target range of 90 mg to 110 mg per deciliter (2.3 to 2.8 mmol per liter) (higher-target group). All the patients had evidence of cerebrovascular or coronary-artery atherosclerosis and received a statin, ezetimibe, or both. The composite primary end point of major cardiovascular events included ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, new symptoms leading to urgent coronary or carotid revascularization, or death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS: A total of 2860 patients were enrolled and followed for a median of 3.5 years; 1430 were assigned to each LDL cholesterol target group. The mean LDL cholesterol level at baseline was 135 mg per deciliter (3.5 mmol per liter), and the mean achieved LDL cholesterol level was 65 mg per deciliter (1.7 mmol per liter) in the lower-target group and 96 mg per deciliter (2.5 mmol per liter) in the higher-target group. The trial was stopped for administrative reasons after 277 of an anticipated 385 end-point events had occurred. The composite primary end point occurred in 121 patients (8.5%) in the lower-target group and in 156 (10.9%) in the higher-target group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.61 to 0.98; P = 0.04). The incidence of intracranial hemorrhage and newly diagnosed diabetes did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: After an ischemic stroke or TIA with evidence of atherosclerosis, patients who had a target LDL cholesterol level of less than 70 mg per deciliter had a lower risk of subsequent cardiovascular events than those who had a target range of 90 mg to 110 mg per deciliter. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health and others; Treat Stroke to Target ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01252875.).

Initial Invasive or Conservative Strategy for Stable Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, -1.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522.).

Patient selection for long-term secondary prevention with ticagrelor: insights from PEGASUS-TIMI 54.

AIM: In patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI) on aspirin, the addition of ticagrelor reduces ischaemic risk but increases bleeding risk. The simultaneous assessment of baseline ischaemic and bleeding risk may assist clinicians in selecting patients who are most likely to have a favourable risk/benefit profile with long-term ticagrelor. METHODS AND RESULTS: PEGASUS-TIMI 54 randomized 21 162 prior MI patients, 13 956 of which to the approved 60 mg dose or placebo and who had all necessary data. The primary efficacy endpoint was cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke, and the primary safety outcome was TIMI major bleeding; differences in Kaplan-Meier event rates at 3 years are presented. Post-hoc subgroups based on predictors of bleeding and ischaemic risk were merged into a selection algorithm. Patients were divided into four groups: those with a bleeding predictor (n = 2721, 19%) and then those without a bleeding predictor and either 0-1 ischaemic risk factor (IRF; n = 3004, 22%), 2 IRF (n = 4903, 35%), or ≥3 IRF (n = 3328, 24%). In patients at high bleeding risk, ticagrelor increased bleeding [absolute risk difference (ARD) +2.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.6, 3.9] and did not reduce the primary efficacy endpoint (ARD +0.08%, 95% CI -2.4 to 2.5). In patients at low bleeding risk, the ARDs in the primary efficacy endpoint with ticagrelor were -0.5% (-2.2, 1.3), -1.5% (-3.1, 0.02), and -2.6% (-5.0, -0.24, P = 0.03) in those with ≤1, 2, and 3 risk factors, respectively (P = 0.076 for trend across groups). There were significant trends for greater absolute risk reductions for cardiovascular death (P-trend 0.018), all-cause mortality (P-trend 0.027), and net outcomes (P-trend 0.037) with ticagrelor across these risk groups. CONCLUSION: In a post-hoc exploratory analysis of patients with prior MI, long-term ticagrelor therapy appears to be best suited for those with prior MI with multiple IRFs at low bleeding risk. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01225562 ClinicalTrials.gov.

Cardiovascular Risk Reduction with Icosapent Ethyl for Hypertriglyceridemia.

BACKGROUND: Patients with elevated triglyceride levels are at increased risk for ischemic events. Icosapent ethyl, a highly purified eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester, lowers triglyceride levels, but data are needed to determine its effects on ischemic events. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients with established cardiovascular disease or with diabetes and other risk factors, who had been receiving statin therapy and who had a fasting triglyceride level of 135 to 499 mg per deciliter (1.52 to 5.63 mmol per liter) and a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level of 41 to 100 mg per deciliter (1.06 to 2.59 mmol per liter). The patients were randomly assigned to receive 2 g of icosapent ethyl twice daily (total daily dose, 4 g) or placebo. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina. The key secondary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. RESULTS: A total of 8179 patients were enrolled (70.7% for secondary prevention of cardiovascular events) and were followed for a median of 4.9 years. A primary end-point event occurred in 17.2% of the patients in the icosapent ethyl group, as compared with 22.0% of the patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 0.83; P<0.001); the corresponding rates of the key secondary end point were 11.2% and 14.8% (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.83; P<0.001). The rates of additional ischemic end points, as assessed according to a prespecified hierarchical schema, were significantly lower in the icosapent ethyl group than in the placebo group, including the rate of cardiovascular death (4.3% vs. 5.2%; hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.98; P=0.03). A larger percentage of patients in the icosapent ethyl group than in the placebo group were hospitalized for atrial fibrillation or flutter (3.1% vs. 2.1%, P=0.004). Serious bleeding events occurred in 2.7% of the patients in the icosapent ethyl group and in 2.1% in the placebo group (P=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with elevated triglyceride levels despite the use of statins, the risk of ischemic events, including cardiovascular death, was significantly lower among those who received 2 g of icosapent ethyl twice daily than among those who received placebo. (Funded by Amarin Pharma; REDUCE-IT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01492361 .).

Ticagrelor in Patients with Stable Coronary Disease and Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Patients with stable coronary artery disease and diabetes mellitus who have not had a myocardial infarction or stroke are at high risk for cardiovascular events. Whether adding ticagrelor to aspirin improves outcomes in this population is unclear. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind trial, we assigned patients who were 50 years of age or older and who had stable coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus to receive either ticagrelor plus aspirin or placebo plus aspirin. Patients with previous myocardial infarction or stroke were excluded. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding as defined by the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) criteria. RESULTS: A total of 19,220 patients underwent randomization. The median follow-up was 39.9 months. Permanent treatment discontinuation was more frequent with ticagrelor than placebo (34.5% vs. 25.4%). The incidence of ischemic cardiovascular events (the primary efficacy outcome) was lower in the ticagrelor group than in the placebo group (7.7% vs. 8.5%; hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 0.99; P = 0.04), whereas the incidence of TIMI major bleeding was higher (2.2% vs. 1.0%; hazard ratio, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.82 to 2.94; P<0.001), as was the incidence of intracranial hemorrhage (0.7% vs. 0.5%; hazard ratio, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.18 to 2.48; P = 0.005). There was no significant difference in the incidence of fatal bleeding (0.2% vs. 0.1%; hazard ratio, 1.90; 95% CI, 0.87 to 4.15; P = 0.11). The incidence of an exploratory composite outcome of irreversible harm (death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, fatal bleeding, or intracranial hemorrhage) was similar in the ticagrelor group and the placebo group (10.1% vs. 10.8%; hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.02). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stable coronary artery disease and diabetes without a history of myocardial infarction or stroke, those who received ticagrelor plus aspirin had a lower incidence of ischemic cardiovascular events but a higher incidence of major bleeding than those who received placebo plus aspirin. (Funded by AstraZeneca; THEMIS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01991795.).

Complete Revascularization with Multivessel PCI for Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction. Whether PCI of nonculprit lesions further reduces the risk of such events is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease who had undergone successful culprit-lesion PCI to a strategy of either complete revascularization with PCI of angiographically significant nonculprit lesions or no further revascularization. Randomization was stratified according to the intended timing of nonculprit-lesion PCI (either during or after the index hospitalization). The first coprimary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction; the second coprimary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 3 years, the first coprimary outcome had occurred in 158 of the 2016 patients (7.8%) in the complete-revascularization group as compared with 213 of the 2025 patients (10.5%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.91; P = 0.004). The second coprimary outcome had occurred in 179 patients (8.9%) in the complete-revascularization group as compared with 339 patients (16.7%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.61; P<0.001). For both coprimary outcomes, the benefit of complete revascularization was consistently observed regardless of the intended timing of nonculprit-lesion PCI (P = 0.62 and P = 0.27 for interaction for the first and second coprimary outcomes, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, complete revascularization was superior to culprit-lesion-only PCI in reducing the risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction, as well as the risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; COMPLETE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01740479.).

Ticagrelor with or without Aspirin in High-Risk Patients after PCI.

BACKGROUND: Monotherapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor after a minimum period of dual antiplatelet therapy is an emerging approach to reduce the risk of bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: In a double-blind trial, we examined the effect of ticagrelor alone as compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin with regard to clinically relevant bleeding among patients who were at high risk for bleeding or an ischemic event and had undergone PCI. After 3 months of treatment with ticagrelor plus aspirin, patients who had not had a major bleeding event or ischemic event continued to take ticagrelor and were randomly assigned to receive aspirin or placebo for 1 year. The primary end point was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding. We also evaluated the composite end point of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, using a noninferiority hypothesis with an absolute margin of 1.6 percentage points. RESULTS: We enrolled 9006 patients, and 7119 underwent randomization after 3 months. Between randomization and 1 year, the incidence of the primary end point was 4.0% among patients randomly assigned to receive ticagrelor plus placebo and 7.1% among patients assigned to receive ticagrelor plus aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 0.68; P<0.001). The difference in risk between the groups was similar for BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding (incidence, 1.0% among patients receiving ticagrelor plus placebo and 2.0% among patients receiving ticagrelor plus aspirin; hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.74). The incidence of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke was 3.9% in both groups (difference, -0.06 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.97 to 0.84; hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.25; P<0.001 for noninferiority). CONCLUSIONS: Among high-risk patients who underwent PCI and completed 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy, ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with a lower incidence of clinically relevant bleeding than ticagrelor plus aspirin, with no higher risk of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. (Funded by AstraZeneca; TWILIGHT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02270242.).

Effect of Anticoagulant Therapy for 6 Weeks vs 3 Months on Recurrence and Bleeding Events in Patients Younger Than 21 Years of Age With Provoked Venous Thromboembolism: The Kids-DOTT Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Among patients younger than 21 years of age, the optimal duration of anticoagulant therapy for venous thromboembolism is unknown. Objective: To test the hypothesis that a 6-week duration of anticoagulant therapy for provoked venous thromboembolism is noninferior to a conventional 3-month therapy duration in patients younger than 21 years of age. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial involving 417 patients younger than 21 years of age with acute, provoked venous thromboembolism enrolled at 42 centers in 5 countries from 2008-2021. The main exclusions were severe anticoagulant deficiencies or prior venous thromboembolism. Patients without persistent antiphospholipid antibodies and whose thrombi were resolved or not completely occlusive upon repeat imaging at 6 weeks after diagnosis underwent randomization. The final visit for the primary end points occurred in January 2021. Interventions: Total duration for anticoagulant therapy of 6 weeks (n = 207) vs 3 months (n = 210) for provoked venous thromboembolism. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy and safety end points were centrally adjudicated symptomatic recurrent venous thromboembolism and clinically relevant bleeding events within 1 year blinded to treatment group. The primary analysis was noninferiority in the per-protocol population. The noninferiority boundary incorporated a bivariate trade-off that included an absolute increase of 0% in symptomatic recurrent venous thromboembolism with an absolute risk reduction of 4% in clinically relevant bleeding events (1 of 3 points on the bivariate noninferiority boundary curve). Results: Among 417 randomized patients, 297 (median age, 8.3 [range, 0.04-20.9] years; 49% female) met criteria for the primary per-protocol population analysis. The Kaplan-Meier estimate for the 1-year cumulative incidence of the primary efficacy outcome was 0.66% (95% CI, 0%-1.95%) in the 6-week anticoagulant therapy group and 0.70% (95% CI, 0%-2.07%) in the 3-month anticoagulant therapy group, and for the primary safety outcome, the incidence was 0.65% (95% CI, 0%-1.91%) and 0.70% (95% CI, 0%-2.06%). Based on absolute risk differences in recurrent venous thromboembolism and clinically relevant bleeding events between groups, noninferiority was demonstrated. Adverse events occurred in 26% of patients in the 6-week anticoagulant therapy group and in 32% of patients in the 3-month anticoagulant therapy group; the most common adverse event was fever (1.9% and 3.4%, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients younger than 21 years of age with provoked venous thromboembolism, anticoagulant therapy for 6 weeks compared with 3 months met noninferiority criteria based on the trade-off between recurrent venous thromboembolism risk and bleeding risk. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00687882.