Anthracycline-induced cardiovascular toxicity: validation of the Heart Failure Association and International Cardio-Oncology Society risk score.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Baseline cardiovascular toxicity risk stratification is critical in cardio-oncology. The Heart Failure Association (HFA) and International Cardio-Oncology Society (ICOS) score aims to assess this risk but lacks real-life validation. This study validates the HFA-ICOS score for anthracycline-induced cardiovascular toxicity. METHODS: Anthracycline-treated patients in the CARDIOTOX registry (NCT02039622) were stratified by the HFA-ICOS score. The primary endpoint was symptomatic or moderate to severe asymptomatic cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD), with all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality as secondary endpoints. RESULTS: The analysis included 1066 patients (mean age 54 ± 14 years; 81.9% women; 24.5% ≥65 years). According to the HFA-ICOS criteria, 571 patients (53.6%) were classified as low risk, 333 (31.2%) as moderate risk, 152 (14.3%) as high risk, and 10 (0.9%) as very high risk. Median follow-up was 54.8 months (interquartile range 24.6-81.8). A total of 197 patients (18.4%) died, and 718 (67.3%) developed CTRCD (symptomatic: n = 45; moderate to severe asymptomatic: n = 24; and mild asymptomatic: n = 649). Incidence rates of symptomatic or moderate to severe symptomatic CTRCD and all-cause mortality significantly increased with HFA-ICOS score [hazard ratio 28.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.33-88.5; P < .001, and hazard ratio 7.43, 95% CI 3.21-17.2; P < .001) for very high-risk patients. The predictive model demonstrated good calibration (Brier score 0.04, 95% CI 0.03-0.05) and discrimination (area under the curve 0.78, 95% CI 0.70-0.82; Uno's C-statistic 0.78, 95% CI 0.71-0.84) for predicting symptomatic or severe/moderate asymptomatic CTRCD at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: The HFA-ICOS score effectively categorizes patients by cardiovascular toxicity risk and demonstrates strong predictive ability for high-risk anthracycline-related cardiovascular toxicity and all-cause mortality.

Final Study Report of Andexanet Alfa for Major Bleeding With Factor Xa Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Andexanet alfa is a modified recombinant inactive factor Xa (FXa) designed to reverse FXa inhibitors. ANNEXA-4 (Andexanet Alfa, a Novel Antidote to the Anticoagulation Effects of Factor Xa Inhibitors) was a multicenter, prospective, phase-3b/4, single-group cohort study that evaluated andexanet alfa in patients with acute major bleeding. The results of the final analyses are presented. METHODS: Patients with acute major bleeding within 18 hours of FXa inhibitor administration were enrolled. Co-primary end points were anti-FXa activity change from baseline during andexanet alfa treatment and excellent or good hemostatic efficacy, defined by a scale used in previous reversal studies, at 12 hours. The efficacy population included patients with baseline anti-FXa activity levels above predefined thresholds (≥75 ng/mL for apixaban and rivaroxaban, ≥40 ng/mL for edoxaban, and ≥0.25 IU/mL for enoxaparin; reported in the same units used for calibrators) who were adjudicated as meeting major bleeding criteria (modified International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis definition). The safety population included all patients. Major bleeding criteria, hemostatic efficacy, thrombotic events (stratified by occurring before or after restart of either prophylactic [ie, a lower dose, for prevention rather than treatment] or full-dose oral anticoagulation), and deaths were assessed by an independent adjudication committee. Median endogenous thrombin potential at baseline and across the follow-up period was a secondary outcome. RESULTS: There were 479 patients enrolled (mean age, 78 years; 54% male; 86% White); 81% were anticoagulated for atrial fibrillation, and the median time was 11.4 hours since last dose, with 245 (51%) on apixaban, 176 (37%) on rivaroxaban, 36 (8%) on edoxaban, and 22 (5%) on enoxaparin. Bleeding was predominantly intracranial (n=331 [69%]) or gastrointestinal (n=109 [23%]). In evaluable apixaban patients (n=172), median anti-FXa activity decreased from 146.9 ng/mL to 10.0 ng/mL (reduction, 93% [95% CI, 94-93]); in rivaroxaban patients (n=132), it decreased from 214.6 ng/mL to 10.8 ng/mL (94% [95% CI, 95-93]); in edoxaban patients (n=28), it decreased from 121.1 ng/mL to 24.4 ng/mL (71% [95% CI, 82-65); and in enoxaparin patients (n=17), it decreased from 0.48 IU/mL to 0.11 IU/mL (75% [95% CI, 79-67]). Excellent or good hemostasis occurred in 274 of 342 evaluable patients (80% [95% CI, 75-84]). In the safety population, thrombotic events occurred in 50 (10%) patients; in 16 patients, these occurred during treatment with prophylactic anticoagulation that began after the bleeding event. No thrombotic episodes occurred after oral anticoagulation restart. Specific to certain populations, reduction of anti-FXa activity from baseline to nadir significantly predicted hemostatic efficacy in patients with intracranial hemorrhage (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.54-0.70]) and correlated with lower mortality in patients <75 years of age (adjusted P=0.022; unadjusted P=0.003). Median endogenous thrombin potential was within the normal range by the end of andexanet alfa bolus through 24 hours for all FXa inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with major bleeding associated with the use of FXa inhibitors, treatment with andexanet alfa reduced anti-FXa activity and was associated with good or excellent hemostatic efficacy in 80% of patients. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02329327.

Survival After Invasive or Conservative Management of Stable Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: The ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) compared an initial invasive versus an initial conservative management strategy for patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, with no major difference in most outcomes during a median of 3.2 years. Extended follow-up for mortality is ongoing. METHODS: ISCHEMIA participants were randomized to an initial invasive strategy added to guideline-directed medical therapy or a conservative strategy. Patients with moderate or severe ischemia, ejection fraction ≥35%, and no recent acute coronary syndromes were included. Those with an unacceptable level of angina were excluded. Extended follow-up for vital status is being conducted by sites or through central death index search. Data obtained through December 2021 are included in this interim report. We analyzed all-cause, cardiovascular, and noncardiovascular mortality by randomized strategy, using nonparametric cumulative incidence estimators, Cox regression models, and Bayesian methods. Undetermined deaths were classified as cardiovascular as prespecified in the trial protocol. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics for 5179 original ISCHEMIA trial participants included median age 65 years, 23% women, 16% Hispanic, 4% Black, 42% with diabetes, and median ejection fraction 0.60. A total of 557 deaths accrued during a median follow-up of 5.7 years, with 268 of these added in the extended follow-up phase. This included a total of 343 cardiovascular deaths, 192 noncardiovascular deaths, and 22 unclassified deaths. All-cause mortality was not different between randomized treatment groups (7-year rate, 12.7% in invasive strategy, 13.4% in conservative strategy; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.85-1.18]). There was a lower 7-year rate cardiovascular mortality (6.4% versus 8.6%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.63-0.96]) with an initial invasive strategy but a higher 7-year rate of noncardiovascular mortality (5.6% versus 4.4%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.08-1.91]) compared with the conservative strategy. No heterogeneity of treatment effect was evident in prespecified subgroups, including multivessel coronary disease. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in all-cause mortality with an initial invasive strategy compared with an initial conservative strategy, but there was lower risk of cardiovascular mortality and higher risk of noncardiovascular mortality with an initial invasive strategy during a median follow-up of 5.7 years. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04894877.

Effect of Thromboprophylaxis on Clinical Outcomes After COVID-19 Hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have an increased incidence of thromboembolism. The role of extended thromboprophylaxis after hospital discharge is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether anticoagulation is superior to placebo in reducing death and thromboembolic complications among patients discharged after COVID-19 hospitalization. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04650087). SETTING: Done during 2021 to 2022 among 127 U.S. hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 18 years or older hospitalized with COVID-19 for 48 hours or more and ready for discharge, excluding those with a requirement for, or contraindication to, anticoagulation. INTERVENTION: 2.5 mg of apixaban versus placebo twice daily for 30 days. MEASUREMENTS: The primary efficacy end point was a 30-day composite of death, arterial thromboembolism, and venous thromboembolism. The primary safety end points were 30-day major bleeding and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. RESULTS: Enrollment was terminated early, after 1217 participants were randomly assigned, because of a lower than anticipated event rate and a declining rate of COVID-19 hospitalizations. Median age was 54 years, 50.4% were women, 26.5% were Black, and 16.7% were Hispanic; 30.7% had a World Health Organization severity score of 5 or greater, and 11.0% had an International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism risk prediction score of greater than 4. Incidence of the primary end point was 2.13% (95% CI, 1.14 to 3.62) in the apixaban group and 2.31% (CI, 1.27 to 3.84) in the placebo group. Major bleeding occurred in 2 (0.4%) and 1 (0.2%) and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 3 (0.6%) and 6 (1.1%) apixaban-treated and placebo-treated participants, respectively. By day 30, thirty-six (3.0%) participants were lost to follow-up, and 8.5% of apixaban and 11.9% of placebo participants permanently discontinued the study drug treatment. LIMITATIONS: The introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines decreased the risk for hospitalization and death. Study enrollment spanned the peaks of the Delta and Omicron variants in the United States, which influenced illness severity. CONCLUSION: The incidence of death or thromboembolism was low in this cohort of patients discharged after hospitalization with COVID-19. Because of early enrollment termination, the results were imprecise and the study was inconclusive. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase 2b Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Recombinant Human Lecithin Cholesterol Acyltransferase in Acute ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Results of REAL-TIMI 63B.

BACKGROUND: High-density lipoprotein plays a key role in reverse cholesterol transport. In addition, high-density lipoprotein particles may be cardioprotective and reduce infarct size in the setting of myocardial injury. Lecithin-cholesterol acyltransferase is a rate-limiting enzyme in reverse cholesterol transport. MEDI6012 is a recombinant human lecithin-cholesterol acyltransferase that increases high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Administration of lecithin-cholesterol acyltransferase has the potential to reduce infarct size and regress coronary plaque in acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. METHODS: REAL-TIMI 63B (A Randomized, Placebo­controlled Phase 2b Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of MEDI6012 in Acute ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction) was a phase 2B multinational, placebo-controlled, randomized trial. Patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction within 6 hours of symptom onset and planned for percutaneous intervention were randomly assigned 2:1 to MEDI6012 (2- or 6-dose regimen) or placebo and followed for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was infarct size as a percentage of left ventricular mass by cardiac MRI at 10 to 12 weeks, with the primary analysis in patients with TIMI Flow Grade 0 to 1 before percutaneous intervention who received at least 2 doses of MEDI6012. The secondary outcome was change in noncalcified plaque volume on coronary computed tomographic angiography from baseline to 10 to 12 weeks with the primary analysis in patients who received all 6 doses of MEDI6012. RESULTS: A total of 593 patients were randomly assigned. Patients were a median of 62 years old, 77.9% male, and 95.8% statin naive. Median time from symptom onset to randomization was 146 (interquartile range [IQR], 103-221) minutes and from hospitalization to randomization was 12.7 (IQR, 6.6-24.0) minutes, and the first dose of drug was administered a median of 8 (IQR, 3-13) minutes before percutaneous intervention. The index myocardial infarction was anterior in 69.6% and TIMI Flow Grade 0 to 1 in 65.1% of patients. At 12 weeks, infarct size did not differ between treatment groups (MEDI6012: 9.71%, IQR 4.79-16.38; placebo: 10.48%, [IQR, 4.92-16.61], 1-sided P=0.79. There was also no difference in noncalcified plaque volume (geometric mean ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, NA-1.10], 1-sided P=0.30). There was no significant difference in treatment emergent serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of MEDI6012 in patients with acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction did not result in a significant reduction in infarct size or noncalcified plaque volume at 12 weeks. MEDI6012 was well tolerated with no excess in overall serious adverse events. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03578809.

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.).

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.

Glycosylated apolipoprotein J in cardiac ischaemia: molecular processing and circulating levels in patients with acute ischaemic events.

AIM: Using proteomics, we previously found that serum levels of glycosylated (Glyc) forms of apolipoprotein J (ApoJ), a cytoprotective and anti-oxidant protein, decrease in the early phase of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We aimed to investigate: (i) ApoJ-Glyc intracellular distribution and secretion during ischaemia; (ii) the early changes in circulating ApoJ-Glyc during AMI; and (iii) associations between ApoJ-Glyc and residual ischaemic risk post-AMI. METHODS AND RESULTS: Glycosylated apolipoprotein J was investigated in: (i) cells from different organ/tissue origin; (ii) a pig model of AMI; (iii) de novo AMI patients (n = 38) at admission within the first 6 h of chest pain onset and without troponin T elevation at presentation (early AMI); (iv) ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients (n = 212) who were followed up for 6 months; and (v) a control group without any overt cardiovascular disease (n = 144). Inducing simulated ischaemia in isolated cardiac cells resulted in an increased intracellular accumulation of non-glycosylated ApoJ forms. A significant decrease in ApoJ-Glyc circulating levels was seen 15 min after ischaemia onset in pigs. Glycosylated apolipoprotein J levels showed a 45% decrease in early AMI patients compared with non-ischaemic patients (P < 0.0001), discriminating the presence of the ischaemic event (area under the curve: 0.934; P < 0.0001). ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients with lower ApoJ-Glyc levels at admission showed a higher rate of recurrent ischaemic events and mortality after 6-month follow-up (P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that ischaemia induces an intracellular accumulation of non-glycosylated ApoJ and a reduction in ApoJ-Glyc secretion. Glycosylated apolipoprotein J circulating levels are reduced very early after ischaemia onset. Its continuous decrease indicates a worsening in the evolution of the cardiac event, likely identifying patients with sustained ischaemia after AMI.

Natural History of Patients With Ischemia and No Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease: The CIAO-ISCHEMIA Study.

BACKGROUND: Ischemia with no obstructive coronary artery disease (INOCA) is common and has an adverse prognosis. We set out to describe the natural history of symptoms and ischemia in INOCA. METHODS: CIAO-ISCHEMIA (Changes in Ischemia and Angina over One Year in ISCHEMIA Trial Screen Failures With INOCA) was an international cohort study conducted from 2014 to 2019 involving angina assessments (Seattle Angina Questionnaire) and stress echocardiograms 1 year apart. This was an ancillary study that included patients with a history of angina who were not randomly assigned in the ISCHEMIA trial. Stress-induced wall motion abnormalities were determined by an echocardiographic core laboratory blinded to symptoms, coronary artery disease status, and test timing. Medical therapy was at the discretion of treating physicians. The primary outcome was the correlation between the changes in the Seattle Angina Questionnaire angina frequency score and changes in echocardiographic ischemia. We also analyzed predictors of 1-year changes in both angina and ischemia, and we compared CIAO participants with ISCHEMIA participants with obstructive coronary artery disease who had stress echocardiography before enrollment, as CIAO participants did. RESULTS: INOCA participants in CIAO were more often female (66% of 208 versus 26% of 865 ISCHEMIA participants with obstructive coronary artery disease, P<0.001), but the magnitude of ischemia was similar (median 4 ischemic segments [interquartile range, 3-5] both groups). Ischemia and angina were not significantly correlated at enrollment in CIAO (P=0.46) or ISCHEMIA stress echocardiography participants (P=0.35). At 1 year, the stress echocardiogram was normal in half of CIAO participants, and 23% had moderate or severe ischemia (≥3 ischemic segments). Angina improved in 43% and worsened in 14%. Change in ischemia over 1 year was not significantly correlated with change in angina (ρ=0.029). CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in ischemia and angina were common in INOCA but not correlated. Our INOCA cohort had a degree of inducible wall motion abnormalities similar to concurrently enrolled ISCHEMIA participants with obstructive coronary artery disease. Our results highlight the complex nature of INOCA pathophysiology and the multifactorial nature of angina. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02347215.

Efficacy and Safety of Low-Dose Colchicine after Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Experimental and clinical evidence supports the role of inflammation in atherosclerosis and its complications. Colchicine is an orally administered, potent antiinflammatory medication that is indicated for the treatment of gout and pericarditis. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind trial involving patients recruited within 30 days after a myocardial infarction. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either low-dose colchicine (0.5 mg once daily) or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, resuscitated cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction, stroke, or urgent hospitalization for angina leading to coronary revascularization. The components of the primary end point and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 4745 patients were enrolled; 2366 patients were assigned to the colchicine group, and 2379 to the placebo group. Patients were followed for a median of 22.6 months. The primary end point occurred in 5.5% of the patients in the colchicine group, as compared with 7.1% of those in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61 to 0.96; P = 0.02). The hazard ratios were 0.84 (95% CI, 0.46 to 1.52) for death from cardiovascular causes, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.25 to 2.73) for resuscitated cardiac arrest, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.68 to 1.21) for myocardial infarction, 0.26 (95% CI, 0.10 to 0.70) for stroke, and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.31 to 0.81) for urgent hospitalization for angina leading to coronary revascularization. Diarrhea was reported in 9.7% of the patients in the colchicine group and in 8.9% of those in the placebo group (P = 0.35). Pneumonia was reported as a serious adverse event in 0.9% of the patients in the colchicine group and in 0.4% of those in the placebo group (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with a recent myocardial infarction, colchicine at a dose of 0.5 mg daily led to a significantly lower risk of ischemic cardiovascular events than placebo. (Funded by the Government of Quebec and others; COLCOT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02551094.).

Full Study Report of Andexanet Alfa for Bleeding Associated with Factor Xa Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Andexanet alfa is a modified recombinant inactive form of human factor Xa developed for reversal of factor Xa inhibitors. METHODS: We evaluated 352 patients who had acute major bleeding within 18 hours after administration of a factor Xa inhibitor. The patients received a bolus of andexanet, followed by a 2-hour infusion. The coprimary outcomes were the percent change in anti-factor Xa activity after andexanet treatment and the percentage of patients with excellent or good hemostatic efficacy at 12 hours after the end of the infusion, with hemostatic efficacy adjudicated on the basis of prespecified criteria. Efficacy was assessed in the subgroup of patients with confirmed major bleeding and baseline anti-factor Xa activity of at least 75 ng per milliliter (or ≥0.25 IU per milliliter for those receiving enoxaparin). RESULTS: Patients had a mean age of 77 years, and most had substantial cardiovascular disease. Bleeding was predominantly intracranial (in 227 patients [64%]) or gastrointestinal (in 90 patients [26%]). In patients who had received apixaban, the median anti-factor Xa activity decreased from 149.7 ng per milliliter at baseline to 11.1 ng per milliliter after the andexanet bolus (92% reduction; 95% confidence interval [CI], 91 to 93); in patients who had received rivaroxaban, the median value decreased from 211.8 ng per milliliter to 14.2 ng per milliliter (92% reduction; 95% CI, 88 to 94). Excellent or good hemostasis occurred in 204 of 249 patients (82%) who could be evaluated. Within 30 days, death occurred in 49 patients (14%) and a thrombotic event in 34 (10%). Reduction in anti-factor Xa activity was not predictive of hemostatic efficacy overall but was modestly predictive in patients with intracranial hemorrhage. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute major bleeding associated with the use of a factor Xa inhibitor, treatment with andexanet markedly reduced anti-factor Xa activity, and 82% of patients had excellent or good hemostatic efficacy at 12 hours, as adjudicated according to prespecified criteria. (Funded by Portola Pharmaceuticals; ANNEXA-4 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02329327.).

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.).

Inhibition of p38 MAP kinase in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction - findings from the LATITUDE-TIMI 60 trial.

BACKGROUND: p38 mitogen activated kinase (MAPK) mediates the response to pro-inflammatory cytokines following myocardial infarction (MI) and is inhibited by losmapimod. METHODS: LATITUDE-TIMI 60 (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02145468) randomized patients with MI to losmapimod or placebo for 12 weeks (24 weeks total follow-up). In this pre-specified analysis, we examined outcomes based on MI type [ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) (865, 25%) and non-STEMI (2624, 75%)]. RESULTS: In patients with STEMI, inflammation, measured by hs-CRP, was significantly attenuated with losmapimod at 48 hours (P <0.001) and week 12 (P = 0.01). Losmapimod lowered NT-proBNP in patients with STEMI at 48 hours (P = 0.04) and week 12 (P = 0.02). The effects of losmapimod on CV death (CVD), MI, or severe recurrent ischemia requiring urgent coronary artery revascularization at 24 weeks [MACE] differed in patients with STEMI (7.0% vs 10.8%; HR 0.65, 95%CI 0.41 - 1.03; P= 0.06) and NSTEMI (11.4% vs 8.5%; HR 1.30, 95%CI 1.02 - 1.66; P = 0.04; p[int] = 0.009). CVD or HHF among patients with STEMI were 5.6% (losmapimod) and 8.3% (placebo) (HR 0.66; 95%CI 0.40 - 1.11; P = 0.12) and in NSTEMI were 4.8% (losmapimod) and 4.4% (placebo) (HR 1.09; 95%CI 0.76 - 1.56) in patients with NSTEMI. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with STEMI treated with losmapimod had an attenuated inflammatory response. Our collective findings raise the hypothesis that mitigating the inflammatory response may result in different outcomes in patients with STEMI and NSTEMI. While the difference in outcomes is exploratory, these findings do support separate examination of patients with STEMI and NSTEMI and increased emphasis on heart failure in future investigation of modulators of inflammation in MI.

Effect of P2Y12 Inhibitors on Survival Free of Organ Support Among Non-Critically Ill Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Platelets represent a potential therapeutic target for improved clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective: To evaluate the benefits and risks of adding a P2Y12 inhibitor to anticoagulant therapy among non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An open-label, bayesian, adaptive randomized clinical trial including 562 non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 was conducted between February 2021 and June 2021 at 60 hospitals in Brazil, Italy, Spain, and the US. The date of final 90-day follow-up was September 15, 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomized to a therapeutic dose of heparin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor (n = 293) or a therapeutic dose of heparin only (usual care) (n = 269) in a 1:1 ratio for 14 days or until hospital discharge, whichever was sooner. Ticagrelor was the preferred P2Y12 inhibitor. Main Outcomes and Measures: The composite primary outcome was organ support-free days evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and, for those who survived to hospital discharge, the number of days free of respiratory or cardiovascular organ support up to day 21 of the index hospitalization (range, -1 to 21 days; higher scores indicate less organ support and better outcomes). The primary safety outcome was major bleeding by 28 days as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis. Results: Enrollment of non-critically ill patients was discontinued when the prespecified criterion for futility was met. All 562 patients who were randomized (mean age, 52.7 [SD, 13.5] years; 41.5% women) completed the trial and 87% received a therapeutic dose of heparin by the end of study day 1. In the P2Y12 inhibitor group, ticagrelor was used in 63% of patients and clopidogrel in 37%. The median number of organ support-free days was 21 days (IQR, 20-21 days) among patients in the P2Y12 inhibitor group and was 21 days (IQR, 21-21 days) in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.83 [95% credible interval, 0.55-1.25]; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio <1.2], 96%). Major bleeding occurred in 6 patients (2.0%) in the P2Y12 inhibitor group and in 2 patients (0.7%) in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio, 3.31 [95% CI, 0.64-17.2]; P = .15). Conclusions and Relevance: Among non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the use of a P2Y12 inhibitor in addition to a therapeutic dose of heparin, compared with a therapeutic dose of heparin only, did not result in an increased odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days during hospitalization. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04505774.

Initial Invasive Versus Conservative Management of Stable Ischemic Heart Disease in Patients With a History of Heart Failure or Left Ventricular Dysfunction: Insights From the ISCHEMIA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Whether an initial invasive strategy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and at least moderate ischemia improves outcomes in the setting of a history of heart failure (HF) or left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) when ejection fraction is ≥35% but <45% is unknown. METHODS: Among 5179 participants randomized into ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches), all of whom had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥35%, we compared cardiovascular outcomes by treatment strategy in participants with a history of HF/LVD at baseline versus those without HF/LVD. Median follow-up was 3.2 years. RESULTS: There were 398 (7.7%) participants with HF/LVD at baseline, of whom 177 had HF/LVEF >45%, 28 HF/LVEF 35% to 45%, and 193 LVEF 35% to 45% but no history of HF. HF/LVD was associated with more comorbidities at baseline, particularly previous myocardial infarction, stroke, and hypertension. Compared with patients without HF/LVD, participants with HF/LVD were more likely to experience a primary outcome composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, HF, or resuscitated cardiac arrest (4-year cumulative incidence rate, 22.7% versus 13.8%; cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction, 19.7% versus 12.3%; and all-cause death or HF, 15.0% versus 6.9%). Participants with HF/LVD randomized to the invasive versus conservative strategy had a lower rate of the primary outcome (17.2% versus 29.3%; difference in 4-year event rate, -12.1% [95% CI, -22.6 to -1.6%]), whereas those without HF/LVD did not (13.0% versus 14.6%; difference in 4-year event rate, -1.6% [95% CI, -3.8% to 0.7%]; P interaction = 0.055). A similar differential effect was seen for the primary outcome, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality when invasive versus conservative strategy-associated outcomes were analyzed with LVEF as a continuous variable for patients with and without previous HF. CONCLUSIONS: ISCHEMIA participants with stable ischemic heart disease and at least moderate ischemia with a history of HF or LVD were at increased risk for the primary outcome. In the small, high-risk subgroup with HF and LVEF 35% to 45%, an initial invasive approach was associated with better event-free survival. This result should be considered hypothesis-generating. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Hemostatic Efficacy and Anti-FXa (Factor Xa) Reversal With Andexanet Alfa in Intracranial Hemorrhage: ANNEXA-4 Substudy.

Background and Purpose: Andexanet alfa is a recombinant modified human FXa (factor Xa) developed to reverse FXa inhibition from anticoagulants. Hemostatic efficacy and reversal of anti-FXa activity with andexanet were assessed in patients from the ANNEXA-4 study (Andexanet Alfa, a Novel Antidote to the Anticoagulation Effects of FXa Inhibitors) with intracranial hemorrhage (ICrH). Methods: ANNEXA-4 was a single-arm study evaluating andexanet in patients presenting with major bleeding ≤18 hours after taking an FXa inhibitor. Patients received a bolus plus 2-hour infusion of andexanet. Brain imaging in patients with ICrH was performed at baseline and at 1 and 12 hours postandexanet infusion. Coprimary efficacy outcomes were change in anti-FXa activity and hemostatic efficacy at 12 hours (excellent/good efficacy defined as ≤35% increase in hemorrhage volume/thickness). Safety outcomes included occurrence of thrombotic events and death at 30 days. Results: A total of 227 patients with ICrH were included in the safety population (51.5% male; mean age 79.3 years) and 171 in the efficacy population (99 spontaneous and 72 traumatic bleeds). In efficacy evaluable patients, excellent/good hemostasis 12 hours postandexanet occurred in 77 out of 98 (78.6%) and in 58 out of 70 (82.9%) patients with spontaneous and traumatic bleeding, respectively. In the subanalysis by FXa inhibitor treatment group in the efficacy population, median of percent change in anti-FXa from baseline to nadir showed a decrease of 93.8% for apixaban-treated patients (n=99) and by 92.6% for rivaroxaban-treated patients (n=59). Within 30 days, death occurred in 34 out of 227 (15.0%) patients and thrombotic events occurred in 21 out of 227 (9.3%) patients (safety population). Conclusions: Andexanet reduced anti-FXa activity in FXa inhibitor-treated patients with ICrH, with a high rate of hemostatic efficacy. Andexanet may substantially benefit patients with ICrH, the most serious complication of anticoagulation. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02329327.

Non-severe immunosuppression might be associated with a lower risk of moderate-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome in COVID-19: A pilot study.

The role of immunosuppression among coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients has not been elucidated and management may be challenging. This observational study included confirmed COVID-19 patients. The primary endpoint was the development of moderate-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Time to moderate-severe ARDS, the need for mechanical or noninvasive ventilation (MV/NIV), death, and a composite of death or MV/NIV were secondary endpoints. Of 138 patients included, 27 (19.6%) were immunosuppressed (IS) and 95 (68.8%) were male, with a median (IQR) age of 68 (54-78) years. A significantly lower proportion of IS patients (25.9%) compared to non-IS patients (52.3%) developed moderate-severe ARDS, in both unadjusted (0.32; 95% CI, 0.13-0.83; p = .017) and adjusted (aOR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.08-0.80; p = .019) analyses. After stratifying by pathologies, only IS patients with autoimmune diseases remained significant (aOR 0.25; 95% CI, 0.07-0.98; p = .046). Nonsignificant trends toward a longer time to moderate or severe ARDS, a lower need for MV/NIV, and a lower risk of death or MV/NIV were detected among IS. In our cohort of COVID-19 patients, nonsevere immunosuppression was associated with a lower risk of moderate-severe ARDS, especially among AD. This suggests a potential protective effect from a hypothesized hyper-inflammatory response.

Classification, prevalence, and outcomes of anticancer therapy-induced cardiotoxicity: the CARDIOTOX registry.

AIM: Cardiotoxicity (CTox) is a major side effect of cancer therapies, but uniform diagnostic criteria to guide clinical and research practices are lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: We prospectively studied 865 patients, aged 54.7 ± 13.9; 16.3% men, scheduled for anticancer therapy related with moderate/high CTox risk. Four groups of progressive myocardial damage/dysfunction were considered according to current guidelines: normal, normal biomarkers (high-sensitivity troponin T and N-terminal natriuretic pro-peptide), and left ventricular (LV) function; mild, abnormal biomarkers, and/or LV dysfunction (LVD) maintaining an LV ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥50%; moderate, LVD with LVEF 40-49%; and severe, LVD with LVEF ≤40% or symptomatic heart failure. Cardiotoxicity was defined as new or worsening of myocardial damage/ventricular function from baseline during follow-up. Patients were followed for a median of 24 months. Cardiotoxicity was identified in 37.5% patients during follow-up [95% confidence interval (CI) 34.22-40.8%], 31.6% with mild, 2.8% moderate, and 3.1% with severe myocardial damage/dysfunction. The mortality rate in the severe CTox group was 22.9 deaths per 100 patients-year vs. 2.3 deaths per 100 patients-year in the rest of groups, hazard ratio of 10.2 (95% CI 5.5-19.2) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients present objective data of myocardial injury/dysfunction during or after cancer therapy. Nevertheless, severe CTox, with a strong prognostic relationship, was comparatively rare. This should be reflected in protocols for clinical and research practices.

Time-to-treatment initiation of colchicine and cardiovascular outcomes after myocardial infarction in the Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT).

AIMS: The COLchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT) demonstrated the benefits of targeting inflammation after myocardial infarction (MI). We aimed to determine whether time-to-treatment initiation (TTI) influences the beneficial impact of colchicine. METHODS AND RESULTS: In COLCOT, patients were randomly assigned to receive colchicine or placebo within 30 days post-MI. Time-to-treatment initiation was defined as the length of time between the index MI and the initiation of study medication. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, stroke, or urgent hospitalization for angina requiring coronary revascularization. The relationship between endpoints and various TTI (<3, 4-7 and >8 days) was examined using multivariable Cox regression models. Amongst the 4661 patients included in this analysis, there were 1193, 720, and 2748 patients, respectively, in the three TTI strata. After a median follow-up of 22.7 months, there was a significant reduction in the incidence of the primary endpoint for patients in whom colchicine was initiated < Day 3 compared with placebo [hazard ratios (HR) = 0.52, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.32-0.84], in contrast to patients in whom colchicine was initiated between Days 4 and 7 (HR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.53-1.75) or > Day 8 (HR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.61-1.11). The beneficial effects of early initiation of colchicine were also demonstrated for urgent hospitalization for angina requiring revascularization (HR = 0.35), all coronary revascularization (HR = 0.63), and the composite of cardiovascular death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, or stroke (HR = 0.55, all P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Patients benefit from early, in-hospital initiation of colchicine after MI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: COLCOT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02551094.

Efficacy and Safety of Apixaban Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Extremes in Body Weight.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines caution against the use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in patients with extremely high (>120 kg) or low (≤60 kg) body weight because of a lack of data in these populations. METHODS: In a post hoc analysis of ARISTOTLE (Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation; n=18 201), a randomized trial comparing apixaban with warfarin for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, we estimated the randomized treatment effect (apixaban versus warfarin) stratified by body weight (≤60, >60-120, >120 kg) using a Cox regression model and tested the interaction between body weight and randomized treatment. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were stroke or systemic embolism and major bleeding. RESULTS: Of the 18 139 patients with available weight and outcomes data, 1985 (10.9%) were in the low-weight group (≤60 kg), 15 172 (83.6%) were in the midrange weight group (>60-120 kg), and 982 (5.4%) were in the high-weight group (>120 kg). The treatment effect of apixaban versus warfarin for the efficacy outcomes of stroke/systemic embolism, all-cause death, or myocardial infarction was consistent across the weight spectrum (interaction P value>0.05). For major bleeding, apixaban had a better safety profile than warfarin in all weight categories and even showed a greater relative risk reduction in patients in the low (≤60 kg; HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36-0.82) and midrange (>60-120 kg) weight groups (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61-0.83; interaction P value=0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide evidence that apixaban is efficacious and safe across the spectrum of weight, including in low- (≤60 kg) and high-weight patients (>120 kg). The superiority on efficacy and safety outcomes of apixaban compared with warfarin persists across weight groups, with even greater reductions in major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation with low to normal weight as compared with high weight. The superiority of apixaban over warfarin in regard to efficacy and safety for stroke prevention seems to be similar in patients with atrial fibrillation across the spectrum of weight, including in low- and very high-weight patients. Thus, apixaban appears to be appropriate for patients with atrial fibrillation irrespective of body weight. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00412984.