Apolipoprotein A1 Infusions and Cardiovascular Outcomes after Acute Myocardial Infarction.

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

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.

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

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

Ticagrelor with or without aspirin following percutaneous coronary intervention in high-risk patients with concomitant peripheral artery disease: A subgroup analysis of the TWILIGHT randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal antiplatelet regimen after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) is still debated. This analysis aimed to compare the effect of ticagrelor monotherapy versus ticagrelor plus aspirin in patients with PAD undergoing PCI. METHODS: In the TWILIGHT trial, patients at high ischemic or bleeding risk that underwent PCI were randomized after 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) to aspirin or matching placebo in addition to open-label ticagrelor for 12 additional months. In this post-hoc analysis, patient cohorts were examined according to the presence or absence of PAD. The primary endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding. The key secondary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke. Endpoints were assessed at 12 months after randomization. RESULTS: Among 7,119 patients, 489 (7%) had PAD and were older, more likely to have comorbidities, and multivessel disease. PAD patients had more bleeding or ischemic complications than no-PAD patients. Ticagrelor monotherapy compared to ticagrelor plus aspirin was associated with less BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding in PAD (4.6% vs 8.7%; HR 0.52; 95%CI 0.25-1.07) and no-PAD patients (4.0% vs 7.0%; HR 0.56; 95%CI 0.45-0.69; interaction P-value .830) and a similar risk of death, MI, or stroke in these 2 groups (interaction P-value .446). CONCLUSIONS: Despite their higher ischemic and bleeding risk, patients with PAD undergoing PCI derived a consistent benefit from ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months of DAPT in terms of bleeding reduction without any relevant increase in ischemic events. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY INFORMATION:: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/study/NCT02270242.

CSL112 Infusion Rapidly Increases APOA1 Exchange Rate via Specific Serum Amyloid-Poor HDL Subpopulations When Administered to Patients Post-Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: To characterize the effects of CSL112 (human APOA1 [apolipoprotein A1]) on the APOA1 exchange rate (AER) and the relationships with specific HDL (high-density lipoprotein) subpopulations when administered in the 90-day high-risk period post-acute myocardial infarction. METHODS: A subset of patients (n=50) from the AEGIS-I (ApoA-I Event Reducing in Ischemic Syndromes I) study received either placebo or CSL112 post-acute myocardial infarction. AER was measured in AEGIS-I plasma samples incubated with lipid-sensitive fluorescent APOA1 reporter. HDL particle size distribution was assessed by native gel electrophoresis followed by fluorescent imaging and detection of APOA1 and SAA (serum amyloid A) by immunoblotting. RESULTS: CSL112 infusion increased AER peaking at 2 hours and returning to baseline 24 hours post-infusion. AER correlated with cholesterol efflux capacity (r=0.49), HDL-cholesterol (r=0.30), APOA1 (r=0.48), and phospholipids (r=0.48; all P<0.001) over all time points. Mechanistically, changes in cholesterol efflux capacity and AER induced by CSL112 reflected HDL particle remodeling resulting in increased small HDL species that are highly active in mediating ABCA1 (ATP-binding cassette transporter 1)-dependent efflux, and large HDL species with high capacity for APOA1 exchange. The lipid-sensitive APOA1 reporter predominantly exchanged into SAA-poor HDL particles and weakly incorporated into SAA-enriched HDL species. CONCLUSIONS: Infusion of CSL112 enhances metrics of HDL functionality in patients with acute myocardial infarction. This study demonstrates that in post-acute myocardial infarction patients, HDL-APOA1 exchange involves specific SAA-poor HDL populations. Our data suggest that progressive enrichment of HDL with SAA may generate dysfunctional particles with impaired HDL-APOA1 exchange capacity, and that infusion of CSL112 improves the functional status of HDL with respect to HDL-APOA1 exchange. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02108262.

Migraine headache in patients with spontaneous coronary artery dissection: A report of the iSCAD Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is a nonatherosclerotic cause of myocardial infarction. Migraine headache has been reported to be common among patients with SCAD, but the degree of migraine-related disability has not been quantified. METHODS: Clinical data and headache variables were obtained from the baseline assessment of the prospective, multicenter iSCAD Registry. Migraine-related disability was quantified using the self-reported Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS). Demographic, clinical, psychosocial, and medical characteristics from data entry forms were compared between patients with and without migraine. RESULTS: Of the 773 patients with available data, 46% reported previous or current migraines. Those with migraines were more likely to be women (96.9% vs 90.3%, p = 0.0003). The presence of underlying carotid fibromuscular dysplasia was associated with migraine (35% vs 27%, p = 0.0175). There was not a significant association with carotid artery dissection and migraine. Current migraine frequency was less than monthly (58%), monthly (24%), weekly (16%), and daily (3%). Triptan use was reported in 32.5% of patients, and 17.5% used daily migraine prophylactic medications. Using the MIDAS to quantify disability related to migraine, 60.2% reported little or no disability, 14.4% mild, 12.7% moderate, and 12.7% severe. The mean MIDAS score was 9.9 (mild to moderate disability). Patients with SCAD had higher rates of depression and anxiety (28.2% vs 17.7% [p = 0.0004] and 35.3% vs 26.7% [p = 0.0099], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Migraines are common, frequent, and a source of disability in patients with SCAD. The association between female sex, anxiety, and depression may provide some insight for potential treatment modalities.

Non-vitamin-K-antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) after acute myocardial infarction: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Balancing the risk of bleeding and thrombosis after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is challenging, and the optimal antithrombotic therapy remains uncertain. The potential of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) to prevent ischaemic cardiovascular events is promising, but the evidence remains limited. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of non-vitamin-K-antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in addition to background antiplatelet therapy, compared with placebo, antiplatelet therapy, or both, after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in people without an indication for anticoagulation (i.e. atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism). SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, and two clinical trial registers in September 2022 with no language restrictions. We checked the reference lists of included studies for any additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated NOACs plus antiplatelet therapy versus placebo, antiplatelet therapy, or both, in people without an indication for anticoagulation after an AMI. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently checked the results of searches to identify relevant studies, assessed each included study, and extracted study data. We conducted random-effects pairwise analyses using Review Manager Web, and network meta-analysis using the R package 'netmeta'. We ranked competing treatments by P scores, which are derived from the P values of all pairwise comparisons and allow ranking of treatments on a continuous 0-to-1 scale. MAIN RESULTS: We identified seven eligible RCTs, including an ongoing trial that we could not include in the analysis. Of the six RCTs involving 33,039 participants, three RCTs compared rivaroxaban with placebo, two RCTs compared apixaban with placebo, and one RCT compared dabigatran with placebo. All participants in the six RCTs received concomitant antiplatelet therapy. The available evidence suggests that rivaroxaban compared with placebo reduces the rate of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 0.98; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 250; 3 studies, 21,870 participants; high certainty) and probably reduces cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.01; NNTB 250; 3 studies, 21,870 participants; moderate certainty). There is probably little or no difference between apixaban and placebo in all-cause mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.35; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 334; 2 studies, 8638 participants; moderate certainty) and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.27; number needed to treat not applicable; 2 studies, 8638 participants; moderate certainty). Dabigatran may reduce the rate of all-cause mortality compared with placebo (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.06; NNTB 63; 1 study, 1861 participants; low certainty). Dabigatran compared with placebo may have little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality, although the point estimate suggests benefit (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.52; NNTB 143; 1 study, 1861 participants; low certainty). Two of the investigated NOACs were associated with an increased risk of major bleeding compared to placebo: apixaban (RR 2.41, 95% CI 1.44 to 4.06; NNTH 143; 2 studies, 8544 participants; high certainty) and rivaroxaban (RR 3.31, 95% CI 1.12 to 9.77; NNTH 125; 3 studies, 21,870 participants; high certainty). There may be little or no difference between dabigatran and placebo in the risk of major bleeding (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.22 to 14.12; NNTH 500; 1 study, 1861 participants; low certainty). The results of the network meta-analysis were inconclusive between the different NOACs at all individual doses for all primary outcomes. However, low-certainty evidence suggests that apixaban (combined dose) may be less effective than rivaroxaban and dabigatran for preventing all-cause mortality after AMI in people without an indication for anticoagulation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo, rivaroxaban reduces all-cause mortality and probably reduces cardiovascular mortality after AMI in people without an indication for anticoagulation. Dabigatran may reduce the rate of all-cause mortality and may have little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality. There is probably no meaningful difference in the rate of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality between apixaban and placebo. Moreover, we found no meaningful benefit in efficacy outcomes for specific therapy doses of any investigated NOACs following AMI in people without an indication for anticoagulation. Evidence from the included studies suggests that rivaroxaban and apixaban increase the risk of major bleeding compared with placebo. There may be little or no difference between dabigatran and placebo in the risk of major bleeding. Network meta-analysis did not show any superiority of one NOAC over another for our prespecified primary outcomes. Although the evidence suggests that NOACs reduce mortality, the effect size or impact is small; moreover, NOACs may increase major bleeding. Head-to-head trials, comparing NOACs against each other, are required to provide more solid evidence.

Early technology review: towards an expedited pathway.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence development for medical devices is often focused on satisfying regulatory requirements with the result that health professional and payer expectations may not be met, despite considerable investment in clinical trials. Early engagement with payers and health professionals could allow companies to understand these expectations and reflect them in clinical study design, increasing chances of positive coverage determination and adoption into clinical practice. METHODS: An example of early engagement through the EXCITE International model using an early technology review (ETR) is described which includes engagement with payers and health professionals to better inform companies to develop data that meet their expectations. ETR is based on an early evidence review, a framework of expectations that guides the process and identified gaps in evidence. The first fourteen ETRs were reviewed for examples of advice to companies that provided additional information from payers and health professionals that was thought likely to impact on downstream outcomes or strategic direction. Given that limitations were imposed by confidentiality, examples were genericized. RESULTS: Advice through early engagement can inform evidence development that coincides with expectations of payers and health professionals through a structured, objective, evidence-based approach. This could reduce the risk of business-related adverse outcomes such as failure to secure a positive coverage determination and/or acceptance by expert health professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Early engagement with key stakeholders exemplified by the ETR approach offers an alternative to the current approach of focusing on regulatory expectations. This could reduce the time to reimbursement and clinical adoption and benefit patient outcomes and/or health system efficiencies.

Reversal and removal of oral antithrombotic drugs in patients with active or perceived imminent bleeding.

Remarkable progress has been made in the pharmacological management of patients with cardiovascular disease, including the frequent use of antithrombotic agents. Nonetheless, bleeding complications remain frequent and potentially life-threatening. Therapeutic interventions relying on prompt antithrombotic drug reversal or removal have been developed to assist clinicians in treating patients with active bleeding or an imminent threat of major bleeding due to urgent surgery or invasive procedures. Early phase studies on these novel strategies have shown promising results using surrogate pharmacodynamic endpoints. However, the benefit of reversing/removing antiplatelet or anticoagulant drugs should always be weighed against the possible prothrombotic effects associated with withdrawal of antithrombotic protection, bleeding, and surgical trauma. Understanding the ischemic-bleeding risk tradeoff of antithrombotic drug reversal and removal strategies in the context of urgent high-risk settings requires dedicated clinical investigations, but challenges in trial design remain, with relevant practical, financial, and ethical implications.

Estimation of DAPT Study Treatment Effects in Contemporary Clinical Practice: Findings From the EXTEND-DAPT Study.

BACKGROUND: Differences in patient characteristics, changes in treatment algorithms, and advances in medical technology could each influence the applicability of older randomized trial results to contemporary clinical practice. The DAPT Study (Dual Antiplatelet Therapy) found that longer-duration DAPT decreased ischemic events at the expense of greater bleeding, but subsequent evolution in stent technology and clinical practice may attenuate the benefit of prolonged DAPT in a contemporary population. We evaluated whether the DAPT Study population is different from a contemporary population of US patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention and estimated the treatment effect of extended-duration antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention in this more contemporary cohort. METHODS: We compared the characteristics of drug-eluting stent-treated patients randomly assigned in the DAPT Study to a sample of more contemporary drug-eluting stent-treated patients in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry from July 2016 to June 2017. After linking trial and registry data, we used inverse-odds of trial participation weighting to account for patient and procedural characteristics and estimated a contemporary real-world treatment effect of 30 versus 12 months of DAPT after coronary stent procedures. RESULTS: The US drug-eluting stent-treated trial cohort included 8864 DAPT Study patients, and the registry cohort included 568 540 patients. Compared with the trial population, registry patients had more comorbidities and were more likely to present with myocardial infarction and receive 2nd-generation drug-eluting stents. After reweighting trial results to represent the registry population, there was no longer a significant effect of prolonged DAPT on reducing stent thrombosis (reweighted treatment effect: -0.40 [95% CI, -0.99% to 0.15%]), major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (reweighted treatment effect, -0.52 [95% CI, -2.62% to 1.03%]), or myocardial infarction (reweighted treatment effect, -0.97% [95% CI, -2.75% to 0.18%]), but the increase in bleeding with prolonged DAPT persisted (reweighted treatment effect, 2.42% [95% CI, 0.79% to 3.91%]). CONCLUSIONS: The differences between the patients and devices used in contemporary clinical practice compared with the DAPT Study were associated with the attenuation of benefits and greater harms attributable to prolonged DAPT duration. These findings limit the applicability of the average treatment effects from the DAPT Study in modern clinical practice.

Does early detection of atrial fibrillation reduce the risk of thromboembolic events? Rationale and design of the Heartline study.

BACKGROUND: The impact of using direct-to-consumer wearable devices as a means to timely detect atrial fibrillation (AF) and to improve clinical outcomes is unknown. METHODS: Heartline is a pragmatic, randomized, and decentralized application-based trial of US participants aged ≥65 years. Two randomized cohorts include adults with possession of an iPhone and without a history of AF and those with a diagnosis of AF taking a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) for ≥30 days. Participants within each cohort are randomized (3:1) to either a core digital engagement program (CDEP) via iPhone application (Heartline application) and an Apple Watch (Apple Watch Group) or CDEP alone (iPhone-only Group). The Apple Watch Group has the watch irregular rhythm notification (IRN) feature enabled and access to the ECG application on the Apple Watch. If an IRN notification is issued for suspected AF then the study application instructs participants in the Apple Watch Group to seek medical care. All participants were "watch-naïve" at time of enrollment and have an option to either buy or loan an Apple Watch as part of this study. The primary end point is time from randomization to clinical diagnosis of AF, with confirmation by health care claims. Key secondary endpoint are claims-based incidence of a 6-component composite cardiovascular/systemic embolism/mortality event, DOAC medication use and adherence, costs/health resource utilization, and frequency of hospitalizations for bleeding. All study assessments, including patient-reported outcomes, are conducted through the study application. The target study enrollment is approximately 28,000 participants in total; at time of manuscript submission, a total of 26,485 participants have been enrolled into the study. CONCLUSION: The Heartline Study will assess if an Apple Watch with the IRN and ECG application, along with application-facilitated digital health engagement modules, improves time to AF diagnosis and cardiovascular outcomes in a real-world environment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04276441.

Prehospital treatment with zalunfiban (RUC-4) in patients with ST- elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: Rationale and design of the CELEBRATE trial.

BACKGROUND: Early and complete restoration of target vessel patency in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is associated with improved outcomes. Oral P2Y12 inhibitors have failed to demonstrate either improved patency or reduced mortality when administered in the prehospital setting. Thus, there is a need for antiplatelet agents that achieve prompt and potent platelet inhibition, and that restore patency in the prehospital setting. Zalunfiban, a novel subcutaneously administered glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor designed for prehospital administration, has shown to achieve rapid, high-grade platelet inhibition that exceeds that of P2Y12 inhibitors. Whether prehospital administration of zalunfiban can improve clinical outcome is unknown. HYPOTHESIS: The present study is designed to assess the hypothesis that a single, prehospital injection of zalunfiban given in the ambulance, in addition to standard-of-care in patients with STEMI with intent to undergo primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) will improve clinical outcome compared to standard-of-care with placebo. STUDY DESIGN: The ongoing CELEBRATE trial (NCT04825743) is a phase 3, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, international trial. Patients with STEMI intended to undergo primary PCI will receive treatment with a single subcutaneous injection containing either zalunfiban dose 1 (0.110 mg/kg), zalunfiban dose 2 (0.130 mg/kg) or placebo, and the study drug will be administered in the ambulance before transportation to the hospital. A target of 2499 patients will be randomly assigned to one of the treatment groups in a 1:1:1 ratio, ie, to have approximately 833 evaluable patients per group. The primary efficacy outcome is a ranked 7-point scale on clinical outcomes. The primary safety outcome is severe or life-threatening bleeding according to the Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) criteria. SUMMARY: The CELEBRATE trial will assess whether a single prehospital subcutaneous injection of zalunfiban in addition to standard-of-care in patients with STEMI with intent to undergo primary PCI will result in improved clinical outcome.

Prepercutaneous coronary intervention Zalunfiban dose-response relationship to target vessel blood flow at initial angiogram in st-elevation myocardial infarction - A post hoc analysis of the cel-02 phase IIa study.

BACKGROUND: Zalunfiban (RUC-4) is a novel, subcutaneously administered glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI) designed for prehospital treatment to initiate reperfusion in the infarct-related artery (IRA) before primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Since GPIs have been reported to rapidly reperfuse IRAs, we assessed whether there was a dose-dependent relationship between zalunfiban treatment and angiographic reperfusion indices and thrombus grade of the IRA at initial angiogram in patients with STEMI. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis from the open-label Phase IIa study that investigated the pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, and tolerability of three doses of zalunfiban - 0.075, 0.090 and 0.110 mg/kg - in STEMI patients. This analysis explored dose-dependent associations between zalunfiban and three angiographic indices of the IRA, namely coronary and myocardial blood flow and thrombus burden. Zalunfiban was administered in the cardiac catheterization laboratory prior to vascular access, ∼10 to 15 minutes before the initial angiogram. All angiographic data were analyzed by a blinded, independent, core laboratory. RESULTS: Twentyfour out of 27 STEMI patients were evaluable for angiographic analysis (0.075 mg/kg [n=7], 0.090 mg/kg [n=9], and 0.110 mg/kg [n=8]). TIMI flow grade 2 or 3 was seen in 1/7 patients receiving zalunfiban at 0.075 mg/kg, in 6/9 patients receiving 0.090 mg/kg, and in 7/8 patients receiving 0.110 mg/kg (ptrend = 0.004). A similar trend was observed based on TIMI flow grade 3. Myocardial perfusion was also related to zalunfiban dose (ptrend = 0.005) as reflected by more frequent TIMI myocardial perfusion grade 3. Consistent with the dose-dependent trends in greater coronary and myocardial perfusion, TIMI thrombus ≥4 grade was inversely related to zalunfiban dose (ptrend = 0.02). CONCLUSION: This post hoc analysis found that higher doses of zalunfiban administered in the cardiac catheterization lab prior to vascular access were associated with greater coronary and myocardial perfusion, and lower thrombus burden at initial angiogram in patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Randomized controlled trial of mechanical thrombectomy vs catheter-directed thrombolysis for acute hemodynamically stable pulmonary embolism: Rationale and design of the PEERLESS study.

BACKGROUND: The identification of hemodynamically stable pulmonary embolism (PE) patients who may benefit from advanced treatment beyond anticoagulation is unclear. However, when intervention is deemed necessary by the PE patient's care team, data to select the most advantageous interventional treatment option are lacking. Limiting factors include major bleeding risks with systemic and locally delivered thrombolytics and the overall lack of randomized controlled trial (RCT) data for interventional treatment strategies. Considering the expansion of the pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) model, corresponding rise in interventional treatment, and number of thrombolytic and nonthrombolytic catheter-directed devices coming to market, robust evidence is needed to identify the safest and most effective interventional option for patients. METHODS: The PEERLESS study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05111613) is a currently enrolling multinational RCT comparing large-bore mechanical thrombectomy (MT) with the FlowTriever System (Inari Medical, Irvine, CA) vs catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT). A total of 550 hemodynamically stable PE patients with right ventricular (RV) dysfunction and additional clinical risk factors will undergo 1:1 randomization. Up to 150 additional patients with absolute thrombolytic contraindications may be enrolled into a nonrandomized MT cohort for separate analysis. The primary end point will be assessed at hospital discharge or 7 days post procedure, whichever is sooner, and is a composite of the following clinical outcomes constructed as a hierarchal win ratio: (1) all-cause mortality, (2) intracranial hemorrhage, (3) major bleeding, (4) clinical deterioration and/or escalation to bailout, and (5) intensive care unit admission and length of stay. The first 4 components of the win ratio will be adjudicated by a Clinical Events Committee, and all components will be assessed individually as secondary end points. Other key secondary end points include all-cause mortality and readmission within 30 days of procedure and device- and drug-related serious adverse events through the 30-day visit. IMPLICATIONS: PEERLESS is the first RCT to compare 2 different interventional treatment strategies for hemodynamically stable PE and results will inform strategy selection after the physician or PERT determines advanced therapy is warranted.

External validation of the ADA score for predicting thrombosis among acutely ill hospitalized medical patients from the APEX Trial.

The ADA (Age-D-dimer-Albumin) score was developed to identify hospitalized patients at an increased risk for thrombosis in the coronavirus infectious disease-19 (COVID-19) setting. The study aimed to validate the ADA score for predicting thrombosis in a non-COVID-19 medically ill population from the APEX trial. The APEX trial was a multinational, randomized trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of betrixaban vs. enoxaparin among acutely ill hospitalized patients at risk for venous thromboembolism. The study endpoints included the composite of arterial or venous thrombosis and its components. Metrics of model calibration and discrimination were computed for assessing the performance of the ADA score as compared to the IMPROVE score, a well-validated VTE risk assessment model. Among 7,119 medical inpatients, 209 (2.9%) had a thrombosis event up to 77 days of follow-up. The ADA score demonstrated good calibration for both arterial and venous thrombosis, whereas the IMPROVE score had adequate calibration for venous thrombosis (p > 0.05 from the Hosmer-Lemeshow test). For discriminating arterial and venous thrombosis, there was no significant difference between the ADA vs. IMPROVE score (c statistic = 0.620 [95% CI: 0.582 to 0.657] vs. 0.590 [95% CI: 0.556 to 0.624]; ∆ c statistic = 0.030 [95% CI: -0.022 to 0.081]; p = 0.255). Similarly, for discriminating arterial thrombosis, there was no significant difference between the ADA vs. IMPROVE score (c statistic = 0.582 [95% CI: 0.534 to 0.629] vs. 0.609 [95% CI: 0.564 to 0.653]; ∆ c statistic = -0.027 [95% CI: -0.091 to 0.036]; p = 0.397). For discriminating venous thrombosis, the ADA score was modestly superior to the IMPROVE score (c statistic = 0.664 [95% CI: 0.607 to 0.722] vs. 0.573 [95% CI: 0.521 to 0.624]; ∆ c statistic = 0.091 [95% CI: 0.011 to 0.172]; p = 0.026). The ADA score had a higher sensitivity (0.579 [95% CI: 0.512 to 0.646]; vs. 0.440 [95% CI: 0.373 to 0.507]) but lower specificity (0.625 [95% CI: 0.614 to 0.637] vs. 0.747 [95% CI: 0.737 to 0.758]) than the IMPROVE score for predicting thrombosis. Among acutely ill hospitalized medical patients enrolled in the APEX trial, the ADA score demonstrated good calibration but suboptimal discrimination for predicting thrombosis. The findings support the use of either the ADA or IMPROVE score for thrombosis risk assessment. The applicability of the ADA score to non-COVID-19 populations warrants further research.Clinical Trial Registration: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01583218.

Comparison of the effects of the GPIIb-IIIa antagonist Zalunfiban and the P2Y12 antagonist Selatogrel on Platelet Aggregation.

Understanding the pharmacodynamic effects of platelet inhibitors is standard for developing more effective antithrombotic therapies. An example is the antithrombotic treatment of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), in particular ST-elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients who are in need for rapid acting strong antithrombotic therapy despite the use of aspirin and oral P2Y12-inhibitors. In this study, we evaluated two injectable platelet inhibitors under clinical development (the P2Y12 antagonist selatogrel and the GPIIb-IIIa antagonist zalunfiban) that may be amenable to pre-hospital treatment of STEMI patients. Platelet reactivity was assessed at inhibitor concentrations that represent clinically relevant levels of platelet inhibition (IC20-50%, 1/2Cmax, and Cmax). Light transmission aggregometry (LTA), was used to evaluate the initial rate of aggregation (primary slope, PS) and maximal aggregation (MA). Both adenosine diphosphate (ADP) and thrombin receptor agonist peptide (TRAP) were used as agonists. Zalunfiban demonstrated similar inhibition of platelet aggregation when blood was collected in PPACK or TSC, whereas selatogrel demonstrated greater inhibition in PPACK. In this study, using PPACK anticoagulant, selatogrel and zalunfiban affected PS in response to ADP equivalently at all drug concentrations tested. In contrast, zalunfiban had significantly greater potency at its Cmax concentration compared to selatogrel using TRAP as agonist. Upon evaluation of MA responses at lower doses, selatogrel had greater inhibition of MA in response to ADP than zalunfiban; however, at concentrations that represent Cmax, the drugs were equivalent. Zalunfiban also had greater inhibition of MA in response to TRAP at the Cmax dose. These data suggest that zalunfiban may provide greater protection in reducing thrombus formation than selatogrel, especially since thrombin is an early, key primary agonist in the pathophysiology of thrombotic events.

Icosapent Ethyl Reduces Ischemic Events in Patients With a History of Previous Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: REDUCE-IT CABG.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in surgery and pharmacotherapy, there remains significant residual ischemic risk after coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. METHODS: In REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events With Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial), a multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial, statin-treated patients with controlled low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and mild to moderate hypertriglyceridemia were randomized to 4 g daily of icosapent ethyl or placebo. They experienced a 25% reduction in risk of a primary efficacy end point (composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina) and a 26% reduction in risk of a key secondary efficacy end point (composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) when compared with placebo. The current analysis reports on the subgroup of patients from the trial with a history of coronary artery bypass grafting. RESULTS: Of the 8179 patients randomized in REDUCE-IT, a total of 1837 (22.5%) had a history of coronary artery bypass grafting, with 897 patients randomized to icosapent ethyl and 940 to placebo. Baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups. Randomization to icosapent ethyl was associated with a significant reduction in the primary end point (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76 [95% CI, 0.63-0.92]; P=0.004), in the key secondary end point (HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.56-0.87]; P=0.001), and in total (first plus subsequent or recurrent) ischemic events (rate ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.50-0.81]; P=0.0002) compared with placebo. This yielded an absolute risk reduction of 6.2% (95% CI, 2.3%-10.2%) in first events, with a number needed to treat of 16 (95% CI, 10-44) during a median follow-up time of 4.8 years. Safety findings were similar to the overall study: beyond an increased rate of atrial fibrillation/flutter requiring hospitalization for at least 24 hours (5.0% vs 3.1%; P=0.03) and a nonsignificant increase in bleeding, occurrences of adverse events were comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In REDUCE-IT patients with a history of coronary artery bypass grafting, treatment with icosapent ethyl was associated with significant reductions in first and recurrent ischemic events. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01492361.

Reduction in Revascularization With Icosapent Ethyl: Insights From REDUCE-IT Revascularization Analyses.

BACKGROUND: Patients with elevated triglycerides despite statin therapy have increased risk for ischemic events, including coronary revascularizations. METHODS: REDUCE-IT (The Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial), a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, randomly assigned statin-treated patients with elevated triglycerides (135-499 mg/dL), controlled low-density lipoprotein (41-100 mg/dL), and either established cardiovascular disease or diabetes plus other risk factors to receive icosapent ethyl 4 g/d or placebo. The primary and key secondary composite end points were significantly reduced. Prespecified analyses examined all coronary revascularizations, recurrent revascularizations, and revascularization subtypes. RESULTS: A total of 8179 randomly assigned patients were followed for 4.9 years (median). First revascularizations were reduced to 9.2% (22.5/1000 patient-years) with icosapent ethyl versus 13.3% (33.7/1000 patient-years) with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.58-0.76]; P<0.0001; number needed to treat for 4.9 years=24); similar reductions were observed in total (first and subsequent) revascularizations (negative binomial rate ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.56-0.74]; P<0.0001), and across elective, urgent, and emergent revascularizations. Icosapent ethyl significantly reduced percutaneous coronary intervention (hazard ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.59-0.79]; P<0.0001) and coronary artery bypass grafting (hazard ratio, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.45-0.81]; P=0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Icosapent ethyl reduced the need for first and subsequent coronary revascularizations in statin-treated patients with elevated triglycerides and increased cardiovascular risk. To our knowledge, icosapent ethyl is the first non-low-density lipoprotein-lowering treatment that has been shown to reduce coronary artery bypass grafting in a blinded, randomized trial. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01492361.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Treated With Oral Anticoagulation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A North American Perspective: 2021 Update.

A growing number of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation also have atrial fibrillation. This poses challenges for their optimal antithrombotic management because patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI require oral anticoagulation for the prevention of cardiac thromboembolism and dual antiplatelet therapy for the prevention of coronary thrombotic complications. The combination of oral anticoagulation and dual antiplatelet therapy substantially increases the risk of bleeding. Over the last decade, a series of North American Consensus Statements on the Management of Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention have been reported. Since the last update in 2018, several pivotal clinical trials in the field have been published. This document provides a focused updated of the 2018 recommendations. The group recommends that in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI, a non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant is the oral anticoagulation of choice. Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor should be given to all patients during the peri-PCI period (during inpatient stay, until time of discharge, up to 1 week after PCI, at the discretion of the treating physician), after which the default strategy is to stop aspirin and continue treatment with a P2Y12 inhibitor, preferably clopidogrel, in combination with a non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (ie, double therapy). In patients at increased thrombotic risk who have an acceptable risk of bleeding, it is reasonable to continue aspirin (ie, triple therapy) for up to 1 month. Double therapy should be given for 6 to 12 months with the actual duration depending on the ischemic and bleeding risk profile of the patient, after which patients should discontinue antiplatelet therapy and receive oral anticoagulation alone.

Sex, Permanent Drug Discontinuation, and Study Retention in Clinical Trials: Insights From the TIMI trials.

BACKGROUND: Women are underrepresented across cardiovascular clinical trials. Whether women are more likely than men to prematurely discontinue study drug or withdraw consent once enrolled in a clinical trial is unknown. METHODS: Eleven phase 3/4 TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) trials were included (135 879 men and 51 812 women [28%]). The association between sex and premature study drug discontinuation and withdrawal of consent were examined by multivariable logistic regression after adjusting for potential confounders in each individual trial and combining the individual point estimates in random effects models. RESULTS: After adjusting for baseline differences, women had 22% higher odds of premature drug discontinuation (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj], 1.22 [95% CI, 1.16-1.28]; P<0.001) compared with men. Qualitatively consistent results were observed for women versus men in the placebo arms (ORadj, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.13-1.27]) and active therapy arms (ORadj, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.17-1.30)]; there was some evidence for regional heterogeneity (P interaction <0.001). Of those who stopped study drug prematurely, a similar proportion of men and women in the active arm stopped because of an adverse event (36% for both; P=0.60). Women were also more likely to withdraw consent compared with men (ORadj, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.17-1.36]; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Women were more likely than men to prematurely discontinue study drug and withdraw consent across cardiovascular outcome trials. Premature study drug discontinuation was not explained by baseline differences by sex or a higher proportion of adverse events. Future trials should better capture reasons for drug discontinuation and withdrawal of consent to understand barriers to continued study drug use and clinical trial participation, particularly among women.