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.).

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.

Effects of initial invasive vs. initial conservative treatment strategies on recurrent and total cardiovascular events in the ISCHEMIA trial.

AIMS: The International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial prespecified an analysis to determine whether accounting for recurrent cardiovascular events in addition to first events modified understanding of the treatment effects. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and moderate or severe ischaemia on stress testing were randomized to either initial invasive (INV) or initial conservative (CON) management. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or cardiac arrest. The Ghosh-Lin method was used to estimate mean cumulative incidence of total events with death as a competing risk. The 5179 ISCHEMIA patients experienced 670 index events (318 INV, 352 CON) and 203 recurrent events (102 INV, 101 CON). A single primary event was observed in 9.8% of INV and 10.8% of CON patients while ≥2 primary events were observed in 2.5% and 2.8%, respectively. Patients with recurrent events were older; had more frequent hypertension, diabetes, prior MI, or cerebrovascular disease; and had more multivessel CAD. The average number of primary endpoint events per 100 patients over 4 years was 18.2 in INV [95% confidence interval (CI) 15.8-20.9] and 19.7 in CON (95% CI 17.5-22.2), difference -1.5 (95% CI -5.0 to 2.0, P = 0.398). Comparable results were obtained when all-cause death was substituted for cardiovascular death and when stroke was added as an event. CONCLUSIONS: In stable CAD patients with moderate or severe myocardial ischaemia enrolled in ISCHEMIA, an initial INV treatment strategy did not prevent either net recurrent events or net total events more effectively than an initial CON strategy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01471522.

Outcomes in the ISCHEMIA Trial Based on Coronary Artery Disease and Ischemia Severity.

BACKGROUND: The ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) postulated that patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and moderate or severe ischemia would benefit from revascularization. We investigated the relationship between severity of CAD and ischemia and trial outcomes, overall and by management strategy. METHODS: In total, 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia were randomized to an initial invasive or conservative management strategy. Blinded, core laboratory-interpreted coronary computed tomographic angiography was used to assess anatomic eligibility for randomization. Extent and severity of CAD were classified with the modified Duke Prognostic Index (n=2475, 48%). Ischemia severity was interpreted by independent core laboratories (nuclear, echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging, exercise tolerance testing, n=5105, 99%). We compared 4-year event rates across subgroups defined by severity of ischemia and CAD. The primary end point for this analysis was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points were myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular death or MI, and the trial primary end point (cardiovascular death, MI, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest). RESULTS: Relative to mild/no ischemia, neither moderate ischemia nor severe ischemia was associated with increased mortality (moderate ischemia hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.61-1.30]; severe ischemia HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.57-1.21]; P=0.33). Nonfatal MI rates increased with worsening ischemia severity (HR for moderate ischemia, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.86-1.69] versus mild/no ischemia; HR for severe ischemia, 1.37 [95% CI, 0.98-1.91]; P=0.04 for trend, P=NS after adjustment for CAD). Increasing CAD severity was associated with death (HR, 2.72 [95% CI, 1.06-6.98]) and MI (HR, 3.78 [95% CI, 1.63-8.78]) for the most versus least severe CAD subgroup. Ischemia severity did not identify a subgroup with treatment benefit on mortality, MI, the trial primary end point, or cardiovascular death or MI. In the most severe CAD subgroup (n=659), the 4-year rate of cardiovascular death or MI was lower in the invasive strategy group (difference, 6.3% [95% CI, 0.2%-12.4%]), but 4-year all-cause mortality was similar. CONCLUSIONS: Ischemia severity was not associated with increased risk after adjustment for CAD severity. More severe CAD was associated with increased risk. Invasive management did not lower all-cause mortality at 4 years in any ischemia or CAD subgroup. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Outcomes of Participants With Diabetes in the ISCHEMIA Trials.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with diabetes and chronic coronary disease, it is unclear if invasive management improves outcomes when added to medical therapy. METHODS: The ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trials (ie, ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA-Chronic Kidney Disease) randomized chronic coronary disease patients to an invasive (medical therapy + angiography and revascularization if feasible) or a conservative approach (medical therapy alone with revascularization if medical therapy failed). Cohorts were combined after no trial-specific effects were observed. Diabetes was defined by history, hemoglobin A1c ≥6.5%, or use of glucose-lowering medication. The primary outcome was all-cause death or myocardial infarction (MI). Heterogeneity of effect of invasive management on death or MI was evaluated using a Bayesian approach to protect against random high or low estimates of treatment effect for patients with versus without diabetes and for diabetes subgroups of clinical (female sex and insulin use) and anatomic features (coronary artery disease severity or left ventricular function). RESULTS: Of 5900 participants with complete baseline data, the median age was 64 years (interquartile range, 57-70), 24% were female, and the median estimated glomerular filtration was 80 mL·min-1·1.73-2 (interquartile range, 64-95). Among the 2553 (43%) of participants with diabetes, the median percent hemoglobin A1c was 7% (interquartile range, 7-8), and 30% were insulin-treated. Participants with diabetes had a 49% increased hazard of death or MI (hazard ratio, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.31-1.70]; P<0.001). At median 3.1-year follow-up the adjusted event-free survival was 0.54 (95% bootstrapped CI, 0.48-0.60) and 0.66 (95% bootstrapped CI, 0.61-0.71) for patients with diabetes versus without diabetes, respectively, with a 12% (95% bootstrapped CI, 4%-20%) absolute decrease in event-free survival among participants with diabetes. Female and male patients with insulin-treated diabetes had an adjusted event-free survival of 0.52 (95% bootstrapped CI, 0.42-0.56) and 0.49 (95% bootstrapped CI, 0.42-0.56), respectively. There was no difference in death or MI between strategies for patients with diabetes versus without diabetes, or for clinical (female sex or insulin use) or anatomic features (coronary artery disease severity or left ventricular function) of patients with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher risk for death or MI, chronic coronary disease patients with diabetes did not derive incremental benefit from routine invasive management compared with initial medical therapy alone. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Lowering cholesterol, blood pressure, or both to prevent cardiovascular events: results of 8.7 years of follow-up of Heart Outcomes Evaluation Prevention (HOPE)-3 study participants.

AIMS: Rosuvastatin (10 mg per day) compared with placebo reduced major adverse cardiovascular (CV) events by 24% in 12 705 participants at intermediate CV risk after 5.6 years. There was no benefit of blood pressure (BP) lowering treatment in the overall group, but a reduction in events in the third of participants with elevated systolic BP. After cessation of all the trial medications, we examined whether the benefits observed during the active treatment phase were sustained, enhanced, or attenuated. METHODS AND RESULTS: After the randomized treatment period (5.6 years), participants were invited to participate in 3.1 further years of observation (total 8.7 years). The first co-primary outcome for the entire length of follow-up was the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or CV death [major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE)-1], and the second was MACE-1 plus resuscitated cardiac arrest, heart failure, or coronary revascularization (MACE-2). In total, 9326 (78%) of 11 994 surviving Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE)-3 subjects consented to participate in extended follow-up. During 3.1 years of post-trial observation (total follow-up of 8.7 years), participants originally randomized to rosuvastatin compared with placebo had a 20% additional reduction in MACE-1 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64-0.99] and a 17% additional reduction in MACE-2 (95% CI 0.68-1.01). Therefore, over the 8.7 years of follow-up, there was a 21% reduction in MACE-1 (95% CI 0.69-0.90, P = 0.005) and 21% reduction in MACE-2 (95% CI 0.69-0.89, P = 0.002). There was no benefit of BP lowering in the overall study either during the active or post-trial observation period, however, a 24% reduction in MACE-1 was observed over 8.7 years. CONCLUSION: The CV benefits of rosuvastatin, and BP lowering in those with elevated systolic BP, compared with placebo continue to accrue for at least 3 years after cessation of randomized treatment in individuals without cardiovascular disease indicating a legacy effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00468923.

Similar cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes and established or high risk for coronary vascular disease treated with dulaglutide with and without baseline metformin.

OBJECTIVE: Recent European Guidelines for Diabetes, Prediabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases introduced a shift in managing patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for or established cardiovascular (CV) disease by recommending GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors as initial glucose-lowering therapy. This is questioned since outcome trials of these drug classes had metformin as background therapy. In this post hoc analysis, the effect of dulaglutide on CV events was investigated according to the baseline metformin therapy by means of a subgroup analysis of the Researching Cardiovascular Events with a Weekly Incretin in Diabetes (REWIND) trial. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients in REWIND (n = 9901; women: 46.3%; mean age: 66.2 years) had type 2 diabetes and either a previous CV event (31%) or high CV risk (69%). They were randomized (1:1) to sc. dulaglutide (1.5 mg/weekly) or placebo in addition to standard of care. The primary outcome was the first of a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and death from cardiovascular or unknown causes. Key secondary outcomes included a microvascular composite endpoint, all-cause death, and heart failure. The effect of dulaglutide in patients with and without baseline metformin was evaluated by a Cox regression hazard model with baseline metformin, dulaglutide assignment, and their interaction as independent variables. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by a Cox regression model with adjustments for factors differing at baseline between people with vs. without metformin, identified using the backward selection. RESULTS: Compared to patients with metformin at baseline (n = 8037; 81%), those without metformin (n = 1864; 19%) were older and slightly less obese and had higher proportions of women, prior CV events, heart failure, and renal disease. The primary outcome occurred in 976 (12%) participants with baseline metformin and in 281 (15%) without. There was no significant difference in the effect of dulaglutide on the primary outcome in patients with vs. without metformin at baseline [HR 0.92 (CI 0.81-1.05) vs. 0.78 (CI 0.61-0.99); interaction P = 0.18]. Findings for key secondary outcomes were similar in patients with and without baseline metformin. CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests that the cardioprotective effect of dulaglutide is unaffected by the baseline use of metformin therapy.

Rivaroxaban for Prevention of Covert Brain Infarcts and Cognitive Decline: The COMPASS MRI Substudy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Covert brain infarcts are associated with cognitive decline. It is not known whether therapies that prevent symptomatic stroke prevent covert infarcts. COMPASS compared rivaroxaban with and without aspirin with aspirin for the prevention of stroke, myocardial infarction, and vascular death in participants with stable vascular disease and was terminated early because of benefits of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin over aspirin. We obtained serial magnetic resonance imagings and cognitive tests in a consenting subgroup of COMPASS patients to examine treatment effects on infarcts, cerebral microbleeds, and white matter hyperintensities. METHODS: Baseline and follow-up magnetic resonance imagings were completed in 1445 participants with a mean (SD) interval of 2.0 (0.7) years. Whole-brain T1, T2 fluid-attenuated inversion recovery, T2* sequences were centrally interpreted by blinded, trained readers. Participants had serial measurements of cognition and function. The primary end point was the proportion of participants with incident covert infarcts. Secondary end points were the composite of clinical stroke and covert brain infarcts, cerebral microbleeds, and white matter hyperintensities. RESULTS: At baseline, 493 (34.1%) participants had infarcts. Incident covert infarcts occurred in 55 (3.8%) participants. In the overall trial rivaroxaban plus aspirin reduced ischemic stroke by 49% (0.7% versus 1.4%; hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.51 [0.38-0.68]). In the magnetic resonance imaging substudy the effects of rivaroxaban+aspirin versus aspirin were: covert infarcts: 2.7% versus 3.5% (odds ratio [95% CI], 0.77 [0.37-1.60]); Covert infarcts or ischemic stroke: 2.9% versus 5.3% (odds ratio [95% CI], 0.53 [0.27-1.03]). Incident microbleeds occurred in 6.6% of participants and 65.7% of participants had an increase in white matter hyperintensities volume with no effect of treatment for either end point. There was no effect on cognitive tests. CONCLUSIONS: Covert infarcts were not significantly reduced by treatment with rivaroxaban and aspirin but estimates for the combination of ischemic stroke and covert infarcts were consistent with the effect on ischemic stroke in the overall trial. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01776424.

Dulaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes (REWIND): a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Three different glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists reduce cardiovascular outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk with high glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) concentrations. We assessed the effect of the GLP-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide on major adverse cardiovascular events when added to the existing antihyperglycaemic regimens of individuals with type 2 diabetes with and without previous cardiovascular disease and a wide range of glycaemic control. METHODS: This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was done at 371 sites in 24 countries. Men and women aged at least 50 years with type 2 diabetes who had either a previous cardiovascular event or cardiovascular risk factors were randomly assigned (1:1) to either weekly subcutaneous injection of dulaglutide (1·5 mg) or placebo. Randomisation was done by a computer-generated random code with stratification by site. All investigators and participants were masked to treatment assignment. Participants were followed up at least every 6 months for incident cardiovascular and other serious clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was the first occurrence of the composite endpoint of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes (including unknown causes), which was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01394952. FINDINGS: Between Aug 18, 2011, and Aug 14, 2013, 9901 participants (mean age 66·2 years [SD 6·5], median HbA1c 7·2% [IQR 6·6-8·1], 4589 [46·3%] women) were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive dulaglutide (n=4949) or placebo (n=4952). During a median follow-up of 5·4 years (IQR 5·1-5·9), the primary composite outcome occurred in 594 (12·0%) participants at an incidence rate of 2·4 per 100 person-years in the dulaglutide group and in 663 (13·4%) participants at an incidence rate of 2·7 per 100 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·88, 95% CI 0·79-0·99; p=0·026). All-cause mortality did not differ between groups (536 [10·8%] in the dulaglutide group vs 592 [12·0%] in the placebo group; HR 0·90, 95% CI 0·80-1·01; p=0·067). 2347 (47·4%) participants assigned to dulaglutide reported a gastrointestinal adverse event during follow-up compared with 1687 (34·1%) participants assigned to placebo (p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Dulaglutide could be considered for the management of glycaemic control in middle-aged and older people with type 2 diabetes with either previous cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular risk factors. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Dulaglutide and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes: an exploratory analysis of the REWIND randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Two glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists reduced renal outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes at risk for cardiovascular disease. We assessed the long-term effect of the GLP-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide on renal outcomes in an exploratory analysis of the REWIND trial of the effect of dulaglutide on cardiovascular disease. METHODS: REWIND was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at 371 sites in 24 countries. Men and women aged at least 50 years with type 2 diabetes who had either a previous cardiovascular event or cardiovascular risk factors were randomly assigned (1:1) to either weekly subcutaneous injection of dulaglutide (1·5 mg) or placebo and followed up at least every 6 months for outcomes. Urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratios (UACRs) and estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs) were estimated from urine and serum values measured in local laboratories every 12 months. The primary outcome (first occurrence of the composite endpoint of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes), secondary outcomes (including a composite microvascular outcome), and safety outcomes of this trial have been reported elsewhere. In this exploratory analysis, we investigate the renal component of the composite microvascular outcome, defined as the first occurrence of new macroalbuminuria (UACR >33·9 mg/mmol), a sustained decline in eGFR of 30% or more from baseline, or chronic renal replacement therapy. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01394952. FINDINGS: Between Aug 18, 2011, and Aug 14, 2013, 9901 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive dulaglutide (n=4949) or placebo (n=4952). At baseline, 791 (7·9%) had macroalbuminuria and mean eGFR was 76·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 (SD 22·7). During a median follow-up of 5·4 years (IQR 5·1-5·9) comprising 51 820 person-years, the renal outcome developed in 848 (17·1%) participants at an incidence rate of 3·5 per 100 person-years in the dulaglutide group and in 970 (19·6%) participants at an incidence rate of 4·1 per 100 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·85, 95% CI 0·77-0·93; p=0·0004). The clearest effect was for new macroalbuminuria (HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·68-0·87; p<0·0001), with HRs of 0·89 (0·78-1·01; p=0·066) for sustained decline in eGFR of 30% or more and 0·75 (0·39-1·44; p=0·39) for chronic renal replacement therapy. INTERPRETATION: Long-term use of dulaglutide was associated with reduced composite renal outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Rivaroxaban with or without Aspirin in Stable Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary cardiovascular prevention. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=-4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events. (Funded by Bayer; COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01776424 .).

Safety of Proton Pump Inhibitors Based on a Large, Multi-Year, Randomized Trial of Patients Receiving Rivaroxaban or Aspirin.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are effective at treating acid-related disorders. These drugs are well tolerated in the short term, but long-term treatment was associated with adverse events in observational studies. We aimed to confirm these findings in an adequately powered randomized trial. METHODS: We performed a 3 × 2 partial factorial double-blind trial of 17,598 participants with stable cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease randomly assigned to groups given pantoprazole (40 mg daily, n = 8791) or placebo (n = 8807). Participants were also randomly assigned to groups that received rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) with aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg) alone. We collected data on development of pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, other enteric infections, fractures, gastric atrophy, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, chronic obstructive lung disease, dementia, cardiovascular disease, cancer, hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality every 6 months. Patients were followed up for a median of 3.01 years, with 53,152 patient-years of follow-up. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the pantoprazole and placebo groups in safety events except for enteric infections (1.4% vs 1.0% in the placebo group; odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.75). For all other safety outcomes, proportions were similar between groups except for C difficile infection, which was approximately twice as common in the pantoprazole vs the placebo group, although there were only 13 events, so this difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: In a large placebo-controlled randomized trial, we found that pantoprazole is not associated with any adverse event when used for 3 years, with the possible exception of an increased risk of enteric infections. ClinicalTrials.gov Number: NCT01776424.

Pantoprazole to Prevent Gastroduodenal Events in Patients Receiving Rivaroxaban and/or Aspirin in a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Antiplatelets and anticoagulants are associated with increased upper gastrointestinal bleeding. We evaluated whether proton pump inhibitor therapy could reduce this risk. METHODS: We performed a 3 × 2 partial factorial double-blind trial of 17,598 participants with stable cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease. Participants were randomly assigned to groups given pantoprazole 40 mg daily or placebo, as well as rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily with aspirin 100 mg once daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily, or aspirin 100 mg alone. The primary outcome was time to first upper gastrointestinal event, defined as a composite of overt bleeding, upper gastrointestinal bleeding from a gastroduodenal lesion or of unknown origin, occult bleeding, symptomatic gastroduodenal ulcer or ≥5 erosions, upper gastrointestinal obstruction, or perforation. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in upper gastrointestinal events between the pantoprazole group (102 of 8791 events) and the placebo group (116 of 8807 events) (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-1.15). Pantoprazole significantly reduced bleeding of gastroduodenal lesions (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.94; P = .03); this reduction was greater when we used a post-hoc definition of bleeding gastroduodenal lesion (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.74), although the number needed to treat still was high (n = 982; 95% confidence interval, 609-2528). CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized placebo-controlled trial, we found that routine use of proton pump inhibitors in patients receiving low-dose anticoagulation and/or aspirin for stable cardiovascular disease does not reduce upper gastrointestinal events, but may reduce bleeding from gastroduodenal lesions. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01776424.

Total cardiovascular or fatal events in people with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors treated with dulaglutide in the REWIND trail: a post hoc analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Researching cardiovascular Events with a Weekly INcretin in Diabetes (REWIND) double blind randomized trial demonstrated that weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide 1.5 mg, a glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonist, versus matched placebo reduced the first outcome of major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke (594 versus 663 events) in 9901 persons with type 2 diabetes and either chronic cardiovascular disease or risk factors, and followed during 5.4 years. These findings were based on a time-to-first-event analysis and preclude relevant information on the burden of total major events occurring during the trial. This analysis reports on the total cardiovascular or fatal events in the REWIND participants METHODS: We compared the total incidence of MACE or non-cardiovascular deaths, and the total incidence of expanded MACE (MACE, unstable angina, heart failure or revascularization) or non-cardiovascular deaths between participants randomized to dulaglutide and those randomized to placebo. Incidences were expressed as number per 1000 person-years. Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated using the conditional time gap and proportional means models. RESULTS: Participants had a mean age of 66.2 years, 46.3% were women and 31% had previous cardiovascular disease. During the trial there were 1972 MACE or non-cardiovascular deaths and 3673 expanded MACE or non-cardiovascular deaths. The incidence of total MACE or non-cardiovascular deaths in the dulaglutide and placebo groups was 35.8 and 40.3 per 1000 person-years, respectively [absolute reduction = 4.5 per 1000 person-years; conditional time gap HR 0.90 (95% CI, 0.82-0.98) p = 0.020, and proportional means HR 0.89 (95% CI, 0.80-0.98) p = 0.022]. The incidence of total expanded MACE or non-cardiovascular deaths in the dulaglutide and placebo groups was 67.1 and 74.7 per 1000 person-years, respectively [absolute reduction = 7.6 per 1000 person-years; conditional time gap HR 0.93 (95% CI, 0.87-0.99) p = 0.023, and proportional means HR 0.90 (95% CI, 0.82-0.99) p = 0.028]. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide reduced total cardiovascular or fatal event burden in people with type 2 diabetes at moderate cardiovascular risk. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.clinicaltrials.gouv . Unique Identifier NCT01394952).

Blood-Pressure Lowering in Intermediate-Risk Persons without Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Antihypertensive therapy reduces the risk of cardiovascular events among high-risk persons and among those with a systolic blood pressure of 160 mm Hg or higher, but its role in persons at intermediate risk and with lower blood pressure is unclear. METHODS: In one comparison from a 2-by-2 factorial trial, we randomly assigned 12,705 participants at intermediate risk who did not have cardiovascular disease to receive either candesartan at a dose of 16 mg per day plus hydrochlorothiazide at a dose of 12.5 mg per day or placebo. The first coprimary outcome was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke; the second coprimary outcome additionally included resuscitated cardiac arrest, heart failure, and revascularization. The median follow-up was 5.6 years. RESULTS: The mean blood pressure of the participants at baseline was 138.1/81.9 mm Hg; the decrease in blood pressure was 6.0/3.0 mm Hg greater in the active-treatment group than in the placebo group. The first coprimary outcome occurred in 260 participants (4.1%) in the active-treatment group and in 279 (4.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.10; P=0.40); the second coprimary outcome occurred in 312 participants (4.9%) and 328 participants (5.2%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.11; P=0.51). In one of the three prespecified hypothesis-based subgroups, participants in the subgroup for the upper third of systolic blood pressure (>143.5 mm Hg) who were in the active-treatment group had significantly lower rates of the first and second coprimary outcomes than those in the placebo group; effects were neutral in the middle and lower thirds (P=0.02 and P=0.009, respectively, for trend in the two outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: Therapy with candesartan at a dose of 16 mg per day plus hydrochlorothiazide at a dose of 12.5 mg per day was not associated with a lower rate of major cardiovascular events than placebo among persons at intermediate risk who did not have cardiovascular disease. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00468923.).

Cholesterol Lowering in Intermediate-Risk Persons without Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Previous trials have shown that the use of statins to lower cholesterol reduces the risk of cardiovascular events among persons without cardiovascular disease. Those trials have involved persons with elevated lipid levels or inflammatory markers and involved mainly white persons. It is unclear whether the benefits of statins can be extended to an intermediate-risk, ethnically diverse population without cardiovascular disease. METHODS: In one comparison from a 2-by-2 factorial trial, we randomly assigned 12,705 participants in 21 countries who did not have cardiovascular disease and were at intermediate risk to receive rosuvastatin at a dose of 10 mg per day or placebo. The first coprimary outcome was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, and the second coprimary outcome additionally included revascularization, heart failure, and resuscitated cardiac arrest. The median follow-up was 5.6 years. RESULTS: The overall mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level was 26.5% lower in the rosuvastatin group than in the placebo group. The first coprimary outcome occurred in 235 participants (3.7%) in the rosuvastatin group and in 304 participants (4.8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.91; P=0.002). The results for the second coprimary outcome were consistent with the results for the first (occurring in 277 participants [4.4%] in the rosuvastatin group and in 363 participants [5.7%] in the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.88; P<0.001). The results were also consistent in subgroups defined according to cardiovascular risk at baseline, lipid level, C-reactive protein level, blood pressure, and race or ethnic group. In the rosuvastatin group, there was no excess of diabetes or cancers, but there was an excess of cataract surgery (in 3.8% of the participants, vs. 3.1% in the placebo group; P=0.02) and muscle symptoms (in 5.8% of the participants, vs. 4.7% in the placebo group; P=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with rosuvastatin at a dose of 10 mg per day resulted in a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular events than placebo in an intermediate-risk, ethnically diverse population without cardiovascular disease. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and AstraZeneca; HOPE-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00468923.).

Blood-Pressure and Cholesterol Lowering in Persons without Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Elevated blood pressure and elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. Lowering both should reduce the risk of cardiovascular events substantially. METHODS: In a trial with 2-by-2 factorial design, we randomly assigned 12,705 participants at intermediate risk who did not have cardiovascular disease to rosuvastatin (10 mg per day) or placebo and to candesartan (16 mg per day) plus hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 mg per day) or placebo. In the analyses reported here, we compared the 3180 participants assigned to combined therapy (with rosuvastatin and the two antihypertensive agents) with the 3168 participants assigned to dual placebo. The first coprimary outcome was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, and the second coprimary outcome additionally included heart failure, cardiac arrest, or revascularization. The median follow-up was 5.6 years. RESULTS: The decrease in the LDL cholesterol level was 33.7 mg per deciliter (0.87 mmol per liter) greater in the combined-therapy group than in the dual-placebo group, and the decrease in systolic blood pressure was 6.2 mm Hg greater with combined therapy than with dual placebo. The first coprimary outcome occurred in 113 participants (3.6%) in the combined-therapy group and in 157 (5.0%) in the dual-placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.90; P=0.005). The second coprimary outcome occurred in 136 participants (4.3%) and 187 participants (5.9%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.89; P=0.003). Muscle weakness and dizziness were more common in the combined-therapy group than in the dual-placebo group, but the overall rate of discontinuation of the trial regimen was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of rosuvastatin (10 mg per day), candesartan (16 mg per day), and hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 mg per day) was associated with a significantly lower rate of cardiovascular events than dual placebo among persons at intermediate risk who did not have cardiovascular disease. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00468923.).

Design and baseline characteristics of participants in the Researching cardiovascular Events with a Weekly INcretin in Diabetes (REWIND) trial on the cardiovascular effects of dulaglutide.

The aim was to determine the effects of dulaglutide, a synthetic once-weekly, injectable human glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue that lowers blood glucose, body weight, appetite and blood pressure, on cardiovascular outcomes. People with type 2 diabetes, aged ≥50 years, with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≤9.5%, and either a previous cardiovascular event, evidence of cardiovascular disease or ≥2 cardiovascular risk factors were randomly allocated to a weekly subcutaneous injection of either dulaglutide (1.5 mg) or placebo and followed within the ongoing Researching cardiovascular Events with a Weekly INcretin in Diabetes (REWIND) trial every 3 to 6 months. The primary cardiovascular outcome is the first occurrence of the composite of cardiovascular death or non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke. Secondary outcomes include each component of the primary composite cardiovascular outcome, a composite clinical microvascular outcome comprising retinal or renal disease, hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure requiring hospitalization or an urgent heart failure visit, and all-cause mortality. Follow-up will continue until the accrual of 1200 confirmed primary outcomes. Recruitment of 9901 participants (mean age 66 years, 46% women) occurred in 370 sites located in 24 countries over a period of 2 years. The mean duration of diabetes was 10 years, mean baseline HbA1c was 7.3%, and 31% had prior cardiovascular disease. The REWIND trial's international scope, high proportion of women, high proportion of people without prior cardiovascular disease and inclusion of participants whose mean baseline HbA1c was 7.3% suggests that its cardiovascular and safety findings will be directly relevant to the typical middle-aged patient seen in general practice throughout the world.

Anemia is associated with bleeding and mortality, but not stroke, in patients with atrial fibrillation: Insights from the Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation (ARISTOTLE) trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are prone to cardiovascular events and anticoagulation-related bleeding complications. We hypothesized that patients with anemia are at increased risk for these outcomes. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of the ARISTOTLE trial, which included >18,000 patients with AF randomized to warfarin (target international normalized ratio, 2.0-3.0) or apixaban 5 mg twice daily. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to determine if anemia (defined as hemoglobin <13.0 in men and <12.0 g/dL in women) was associated with future stroke, major bleeding, or mortality. RESULTS: Anemia was present at baseline in 12.6% of the ARISTOTLE population. Patients with anemia were older, had higher mean CHADS2 and HAS-BLED scores, and were more likely to have experienced previous bleeding events. Anemia was associated with major bleeding (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.62-2.28; P<.0001) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.46-1.93; P<.0001) but not stroke or systemic embolism (adjusted HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.70-1.21). The benefits of apixaban compared with warfarin on the rates of stroke, mortality, and bleeding events were consistent in patients with and without anemia. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic anemia is associated with a higher incidence of bleeding complications and mortality, but not of stroke, in anticoagulated patients with AF. Apixaban is an attractive anticoagulant for stroke prevention in patients with AF with or without anemia.

Efficacy and safety of apixaban compared with warfarin at different levels of predicted international normalized ratio control for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: In the Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation (ARISTOTLE) trial, apixaban compared with warfarin reduced stroke and systemic embolism, major bleeding, and mortality. We evaluated treatment effects in relation to 2 predictions of time in therapeutic range (TTR). METHODS AND RESULTS: The trial randomized 18 201 patients with atrial fibrillation to apixaban 5 mg twice daily or warfarin for at least 12 months. For each patient, a center average TTR was estimated with the use of a linear mixed model on the basis of the real TTRs in its warfarin-treated patients, with a fixed effect for country and random effect for center. For each patient, an individual TTR was also predicted with the use of a linear mixed effects model including patient characteristics as well. Median center average TTR was 66% (interquartile limits, 61% and 71%). Rates of stroke or systemic embolism, major bleeding, and mortality were consistently lower with apixaban than with warfarin across center average TTR and individual TTR quartiles. In the lowest and highest center average TTR quartiles, hazard ratios for stroke or systemic embolism were 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-1.00) and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.57-1.35) (Pinteraction=0.078), for mortality were 0.91 (95% CI, 0.74-1.13) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.71-1.16) (Pinteraction=0.34), and for major bleeding were 0.50 (95% CI, 0.36-0.70) and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.58-0.97) (Pinteraction=0.095), respectively. Similar results were seen for quartiles of individual TTR. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of apixaban compared with warfarin for stroke or systemic embolism, bleeding, and mortality appear similar across the range of centers' and patients' predicted quality of international normalized ratio control.