Asundexian versus Apixaban in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Stroke prevention with direct-acting oral anticoagulant agents in patients with atrial fibrillation confers a risk of bleeding and limits their use. Asundexian, an activated factor XI (XIa) inhibitor, is an oral anticoagulant that may prevent strokes with less bleeding. METHODS: In a phase 3, international, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation in a 1:1 ratio to receive asundexian at a dose of 50 mg once daily or standard-dose apixaban. The primary efficacy objective was to determine whether asundexian is at least noninferior to apixaban for the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism. The primary safety objective was to determine whether asundexian is superior to apixaban with respect to major bleeding events. RESULTS: A total of 14,810 randomly assigned patients were included in the intention-to-treat population. The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 73.9±7.7 years, 35.2% were women, 18.6% had chronic kidney disease, 18.2% had a previous stroke or transient ischemic attack, 16.8% had received oral anticoagulants for no more than 6 weeks, and the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score (range, 0 to 9, with higher scores indicating a greater risk of stroke) was 4.3±1.3. The trial was stopped prematurely at the recommendation of the independent data monitoring committee. Stroke or systemic embolism occurred in 98 patients (1.3%) assigned to receive asundexian and in 26 (0.4%) assigned to receive apixaban (hazard ratio, 3.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.46 to 5.83). Major bleeding occurred in 17 patients (0.2%) who received asundexian and in 53 (0.7%) who received apixaban (hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.55). The incidence of any adverse event appeared to be similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with atrial fibrillation at risk for stroke, treatment with asundexian at a dose of 50 mg once daily was associated with a higher incidence of stroke or systemic embolism than treatment with apixaban in the period before the trial was stopped prematurely. There were fewer major bleeding events with asundexian than with apixaban during this time. (Funded by Bayer; OCEANIC-AF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05643573; EudraCT number, 2022-000758-28.).

Empagliflozin after Acute Myocardial Infarction.

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

Apolipoprotein A1 Infusions and Cardiovascular Outcomes after Acute Myocardial Infarction.

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

Restrictive or Liberal Transfusion Strategy in Myocardial Infarction and Anemia.

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

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

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

Restrictive Versus Liberal Transfusion in Patients with Type 1 or Type 2 Myocardial Infarction: A Prespecified Analysis of the Myocardial Ischemia and Transfusion (MINT) Trial.

BACKGROUND: The MINT trial raised concern for harm from a restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and anemia. Type 1 and type 2 MI are distinct pathophysiological entities that may respond differently to blood transfusion. This analysis sought to determine if the effects of transfusion varied among patients with a type 1 or a type 2 MI and anemia. We hypothesized that the liberal transfusion strategy would be of greater benefit in type 2 than in type 1 MI. METHODS: We compared rates of death or MI at 30 days in patients with type 1 (n=1460) and type 2 (n=1955) MI and anemia who were randomly allocated to a restrictive (threshold of 7 to 8 g/dL) or a liberal (threshold of 10 g/dL) transfusion strategy. RESULTS: The primary outcome of death or MI was observed in 16% of type 1 MI and 15.4% of type 2 MI patients. The rate of death or MI was higher in patients with type 1 MI randomized to a restrictive (18.2%) versus liberal (13.2%) transfusion strategy (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.04 - 1.67) with no difference observed between the restrictive (15.8% ) and liberal (15.1% ) transfusion strategies in patients with type 2 MI (RR 1.05 95% CI 0.85-1.29). The test for a differential effect of transfusion strategy by MI type was not statistically significant (P-interaction = 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: The concern for harm with a restrictive transfusion strategy in patients with acute MI and anemia raised in the MINT primary outcome manuscript may be more apparent in patients with type 1 than type 2 MI. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02981407.

Effect of Four Hemoglobin Transfusion Threshold Strategies in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Anemia : A Target Trial Emulation Using MINT Trial Data.

BACKGROUND: The optimal hemoglobin threshold to guide red blood cell (RBC) transfusion for patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and anemia is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the efficacy of 4 individual hemoglobin thresholds (<10 g/dL [<100 g/L], <9 g/dL [<90 g/L], <8 g/dL [<80 g/L], and <7 g/dL [<70 g/L]) to guide transfusion in patients with acute MI and anemia. DESIGN: Prespecified secondary analysis of the MINT (Myocardial Ischemia and Transfusion) trial using target trial emulation methods. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02981407). SETTING: 144 clinical sites in 6 countries. PARTICIPANTS: 3492 MINT trial participants with acute MI and a hemoglobin level below 10 g/dL. INTERVENTION: Four transfusion strategies to maintain patients' hemoglobin concentrations at or above thresholds of 10, 9, 8, or 7 g/dL. Protocol exceptions were permitted for specified adverse clinical events. MEASUREMENTS: Data from the MINT trial were leveraged to emulate 4 transfusion strategies and estimate per protocol effects on the composite outcome of 30-day death or recurrent MI (death/MI) and 30-day death using inverse probability weighting. RESULTS: The 30-day risk for death/MI was 14.8% (95% CI, 11.8% to 18.4%) for a <10-g/dL strategy, 15.1% (CI, 11.7% to 18.2%) for a <9-g/dL strategy, 15.9% (CI, 12.4% to 19.0%) for a <8-g/dL strategy, and 18.3% (CI, 14.6% to 22.0%) for a <7-g/dL strategy. Absolute risk differences and risk ratios relative to the <10-g/dL strategy for 30-day death/MI increased as thresholds decreased, although 95% CIs were wide. Findings were similar and imprecise for 30-day death. LIMITATION: Unmeasured confounding may have persisted despite adjustment. CONCLUSION: The 30-day risks for death/MI and death among patients with acute MI and anemia seem to increase progressively with lower hemoglobin concentration thresholds for transfusion. However, the imprecision around estimates from this target trial analysis precludes definitive conclusions about individual hemoglobin thresholds. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Apolipoprotein A-I Infusions and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Acute Myocardial Infarction According to Baseline LDL-Cholesterol Levels: The AEGIS-II Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In the AEGIS-II trial (NCT03473223), CSL112, a human apolipoprotein A1 derived from plasma that increases cholesterol efflux capacity, did not significantly reduce the risk of the primary endpoint through 90 days versus placebo after acute myocardial infarction (MI). Nevertheless, given the well-established relationship between higher low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and plaque burden, as well as greater risk reductions seen with PCSK9 inhibitors in patients with baseline LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL on statin therapy, the efficacy of CSL112 may be influenced by baseline LDL-C. METHODS: Overall, 18,219 patients with acute MI, multivessel coronary artery disease, and additional risk factors were randomized to either four weekly infusions of 6 g CSL112 or placebo. This exploratory post-hoc analysis evaluated cardiovascular outcomes by baseline LDL-C in patients prescribed guideline-directed statin therapy at the time of randomization (n=15,731). RESULTS: As baseline LDL-C increased, risk of the primary endpoint at 90 days lowered in those treated with CSL112 compared with placebo. In patients with LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL at randomization, there was a significant risk reduction of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke in the CSL112 vs. placebo group at 90, 180, and 365 days (hazard ratio 0.69 [0.53-0.90], 0.71 [0.57-0.88], and 0.78 [0.65-0.93]). In contrast, there was no difference between treatment groups among those with LDL-C <100 mg/dL at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: In this population, treatment with CSL112 compared to placebo was associated with a significantly lower risk of recurrent cardiovascular events among patients with a baseline LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL. Further studies need to confirm that CSL112 efficacy is influenced by baseline LDL-C.

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.

Empagliflozin and left atrial function in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease: insight from the EMPA-HEART CardioLink-6 randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have demonstrated reduction in heart failure outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, although the exact mechanism of benefit remains unclear. Alteration in left atrial (LA) function due to chronic pressure or volume overload is a hallmark of heart failure. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin on LA volume and function. METHODS: 90 patients with coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes (T2DM) were randomized to empagliflozin (n = 44) or placebo (n = 46), and underwent cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging at baseline and after 6 months. The main outcome was change in LA volume; LA function, including active and passive components, was also measured by a blinded reader. RESULTS: At baseline, there was no significant difference in LA volumes between the empagliflozin (indexed maximum LA volume 26.4 ± 8.4mL/m2, minimum LA volume 11.1 ± 5.7mL/m2) and placebo (indexed maximum LA volume 28.7 ± 8.2mL/m2, minimum LA volume 12.6 ± 5.0mL/m2) groups. After 6 months, changes in LA volumes did not differ with adjusted difference (empagliflozin minus placebo): 0.99 mL/m2 (95% CI: -1.7 to 3.7 mL/m2; p = 0.47) for indexed maximum LA volume, and 0.87 mL/m2 (95% CI: -0.9 to 2.6 mL/m2; p = 0.32) for indexed minimum LA volume. Changes in total LA emptying fraction were also similar, with between-group adjusted mean difference - 0.01 (95% CI: -0.05 to 0.03, p = 0.59). CONCLUSION: SGLT2 inhibition with empagliflozin for 6 months did not have a significant impact on LA volume and function in patients with T2DM and coronary artery disease. (Effects of Empagliflozin on Cardiac Structure in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes [EMPA-HEART]; NCT02998970).

Optimizing Post-Acute Coronary Syndrome Dyslipidemia Management: Insights from the North American Acute Coronary Syndrome Reflective III.

INTRODUCTION: Despite contemporary practice guidelines, a substantial number of post-acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients fail to achieve guideline-recommended LDL-C thresholds. Our study aimed to investigate this guideline recommendations-to-practice care gap. Specifically, we aimed to identify opportunities where additional lipid-lowering therapies are indicated and explore reasons for the non-prescription of guideline-recommended therapies. METHODS: ACS patients with LDL-C ≥1.81 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) despite maximally tolerated statin ± ezetimibe therapy (including those intolerant of ≥2 statins) were enrolled 1-12 months post-event from 27 Canadian and US sites from September 2018 to October 2020 and followed up for three visits during the 12 months post-event. We determined the proportion of patients who did not achieve Canadian/US guideline-recommended LDL-C thresholds, the number of patients who would have been eligible for additional lipid-lowering therapies, and reasons behind lack of escalation in lipid-lowering therapies when indicated. Individual patient and aggregate practice feedback, including guideline-recommended intensification suggestions, were provided to each physician. RESULTS: Of the 248 patients enrolled in the pilot study (median age 64 [57, 73] years, 31.5% female and STEMI 27.4%), 75.4% were on high-intensity statins on the first visit. A total of 18.5% of those who attended all 3 visits had an LDL-C measured only at the first visit which was above the threshold. After 1 year of follow-up, 51.9% of patients achieved LDL-C thresholds at either visit 2 or 3. In the context of feedback reminding physicians about guideline-directed LDL-C-modifying therapy in their individual participating patients, we observed an increase in the use of ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitor therapy at 3-12 months. This was associated with a significant lowering of the mean LDL-C (from 2.93 mmol/L [baseline] to 2.09 mmol/L [3-6 months] to 1.87 mmol/L [6-12 months]) and a significantly greater proportion of patients (from 0% [baseline] to 38.6% [3-6 months] to 53.4% [6-12 months]) achieving guideline-recommended LDL-C thresholds. The most prevalent reasons behind the non-intensification of LDL-C-lowering therapy with ezetimibe and/or PCSK9i were LDL-C levels being close to target, the pre-existing use of other lipid-lowering therapies, patient refusal, and cost. CONCLUSION: Although most patients post-ACS were on high-intensity statin therapy, almost 50% failed to achieve guideline-recommended LDL-C thresholds by 1-year follow-up. Furthermore, additional lipid-lowering therapies in this high-risk group were underprescribed, and this might be linked to several factors including potential gaps in physician knowledge, treatment inertia, patient refusal, and cost.

Transiently achieved very low LDL-cholesterol levels by statin and alirocumab after acute coronary syndrome are associated with cardiovascular risk reduction: the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial.

AIMS: Long-term, placebo-controlled cholesterol-lowering trials have demonstrated legacy effects (clinical benefits that persist or emerge after trial end). It is unknown whether legacy effects follow a short period of very low low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels achieved with statin plus PCSK9 inhibitor. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 18,924 patients post-acute coronary syndrome, the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial compared the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab with placebo, each added to high-intensity or maximum-tolerated statin therapy. Patients with two consecutive LDL-C levels <0.39 mmol/L (15 mg/dL) on alirocumab had blinded placebo substitution for the remainder of the trial with continued statin treatment. In post hoc analyses, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in these patients were compared to MACE in propensity score-matched patients from the placebo group with similar baseline characteristics and study medication adherence. In the alirocumab group, 730 patients had blinded placebo substitution at a median 8.3 months from randomization, after a median 6.0 months with LDL-C < 0.39 mmol/L. They were matched to 1460 placebo patients. Both groups had lower baseline LDL-C and lipoprotein(a) and better study medication adherence than the overall cohort. Over a median follow-up of 2.8 years, MACE occurred in 47 (6.4%) alirocumab patients with limited-duration, very low achieved LDL-C versus 122 (8.4%) matched placebo patients (treatment hazard ratio 0.72; 95% confidence interval 0.51, 0.997; P = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: A short period of LDL-C levels <0.39 mmol/L achieved with statin and alirocumab, followed by statin monotherapy, was associated with lower risk of MACE than statin monotherapy throughout the observation period. Clinical benefit persisted for several years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01663402.

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

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

Comprehensive Quality-of-Life Outcomes With Invasive Versus Conservative Management of Chronic Coronary Disease in ISCHEMIA.

BACKGROUND: ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) compared an initial invasive treatment strategy (INV) with an initial conservative strategy in 5179 participants with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia. The ISCHEMIA research program included a comprehensive quality-of-life (QOL) substudy. METHODS: In 1819 participants (907 INV, 912 conservative strategy), we collected a battery of disease-specific and generic QOL instruments by structured interviews at baseline; at 3, 12, 24, and 36 months postrandomization; and at study closeout. Assessments included angina-related QOL (19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire), generic health status (EQ-5D), depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-8), and, for North American patients, cardiac functional status (Duke Activity Status Index). RESULTS: Median age was 67 years, 19.2% were female, and 15.9% were non-White. The estimated mean difference for the 19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire Summary score favored INV (1.4 points [95% CI, 0.2-2.5] over all follow-up). No differences were observed in patients with rare/absent baseline angina (SAQ Angina Frequency score >80). Among patients with more frequent angina at baseline (SAQ Angina Frequency score <80, 744 patients, 41%), those randomly assigned to INV had a mean 3.7-point higher 19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire Summary score than conservative strategy (95% CI, 1.6-5.8) with consistent effects across SAQ subscales: Physical Limitations 3.2 points (95% CI, 0.2-6.1), Angina Frequency 3.2 points (95% CI, 1.2-5.1), Quality of Life/Health Perceptions 5.3 points (95% CI, 2.8-7.8). For the Duke Activity Status Index, no difference was estimated overall by treatment, but in patients with baseline SAQ Angina Frequency scores <80, Duke Activity Status Index scores were higher for INV (3.2 points [95% CI, 0.6-5.7]), whereas patients with rare/absent baseline angina showed no treatment-related differences. Moderate to severe depression was infrequent at randomization (11.5%-12.8%) and was unaffected by treatment assignment. CONCLUSIONS: In the ISCHEMIA comprehensive QOL substudy, patients with more frequent baseline angina reported greater improvements in the symptom, physical functioning, and psychological well-being dimensions of QOL when treated with an invasive strategy, whereas patients who had rare/absent angina at baseline reported no consistent treatment-related QOL differences. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

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.).

Rationale and design for the myocardial ischemia and transfusion (MINT) randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence from clinical trials suggests that a lower (restrictive) hemoglobin threshold (<8 g/dL) for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion, compared with a higher (liberal) threshold (≥10 g/dL) is safe. However, in anemic patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI), maintaining a higher hemoglobin level may increase oxygen delivery to vulnerable myocardium resulting in improved clinical outcomes. Conversely, RBC transfusion may result in increased blood viscosity, vascular inflammation, and reduction in available nitric oxide resulting in worse clinical outcomes. We hypothesize that a liberal transfusion strategy would improve clinical outcomes as compared to a more restrictive strategy. METHODS: We will enroll 3500 patients with acute MI (type 1, 2, 4b or 4c) as defined by the Third Universal Definition of MI and a hemoglobin <10 g/dL at 144 centers in the United States, Canada, France, Brazil, New Zealand, and Australia. We randomly assign trial participants to a liberal or restrictive transfusion strategy. Participants assigned to the liberal strategy receive transfusion of RBCs sufficient to raise their hemoglobin to at least 10 g/dL. Participants assigned to the restrictive strategy are permitted to receive transfusion of RBCs if the hemoglobin falls below 8 g/dL or for persistent angina despite medical therapy. We will contact each participant at 30 days to assess clinical outcomes and at 180 days to ascertain vital status. The primary end point is a composite of all-cause death or recurrent MI through 30 days following randomization. Secondary end points include all-cause mortality at 30 days, recurrent adjudicated MI, and the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, nonfatal recurrent MI, ischemia driven unscheduled coronary revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting), or readmission to the hospital for ischemic cardiac diagnosis within 30 days. The trial will assess multiple tertiary end points. CONCLUSIONS: The MINT trial will inform RBC transfusion practice in patients with acute MI.

Effect of alirocumab on cataracts in patients with acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Some data suggest that low levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) are associated with risk of cataracts. Proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors reduce LDL-C below levels achieved with statins alone. We determined whether the incidence of cataracts was influenced by treatment with the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab versus placebo, and whether that incidence was affected by achieved LDL-C levels. METHODS: The ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial (NCT01663402) compared alirocumab with placebo in 18,924 patients with recent acute coronary syndrome receiving high-intensity or maximum-tolerated statin. Incident cataracts were pre-specified events of interest. In multivariable analysis using propensity score-matching on characteristics including cataract risk factors, incident cataracts were compared in the alirocumab and placebo groups according to LDL-C levels achieved with alirocumab. RESULTS: Over median follow-up of 2.8 years (interquartile range 2.3 - 3.4), the incidence of cataracts was similar with alirocumab (127/9462 [1.3%]) versus placebo (134/9462 [1.4%]); hazard ratio [HR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74 - 1.20). In patients treated with alirocumab with ≥ 2 LDL-C values < 25 mg/dL (0.65 mmol/L), the incidence of cataracts was 71/4305 (1.6%), versus 60/4305 (1.4%) in propensity score-matched patients from the placebo group (HR 1.10, CI 95% 0.78 - 1.55). In patients treated with alirocumab with ≥ 2 LDL-C values < 15 mg/dL (0.39 mmol/L), the incidence of cataracts was 13/782 (1.7%), versus 36/2346 (1.5%) in matched patients from the placebo group (HR 1.03, CI 95% 0.54 - 1.94). CONCLUSION: Treatment with alirocumab versus placebo, added to statin, did not influence the incidence of cataracts, even when achieved LDL-C levels on alirocumab were very low. Longer follow-up studies might be necessary to exclude the long-term effects on the incidence or progression of cataracts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01663402 .

Alirocumab after acute coronary syndrome in patients with a history of heart failure.

AIMS: Patients with heart failure (HF) have not been shown to benefit from statins. In a post hoc analysis, we evaluated outcomes in ODYSSEY OUTCOMES in patients with vs. without a history of HF randomized to the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor alirocumab or placebo. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 18 924 patients with recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS) receiving intensive or maximum-tolerated statin treatment, the primary outcome of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was compared in patients with or without a history of HF. The pre-specified secondary outcome of hospitalization for HF was also analysed. Overall, 2815 (14.9%) patients had a history of HF. Alirocumab reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and lipoprotein(a) similarly in patients with or without HF. Overall, alirocumab reduced MACE compared with placebo [hazard ratio (HR): 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78-0.93; P = 0.0001]. This effect was observed among patients without a history of HF (HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.70-0.86; P < 0.0001), but not in those with a history of HF (HR: 1.17; 95% CI: 0.97-1.40; P = 0.10) (Pinteraction = 0.0001). Alirocumab did not reduce hospitalization for HF, overall or in patients with or without prior HF. CONCLUSION: Alirocumab reduced MACE in patients without a history of HF but not in patients with a history of HF. Alirocumab did not reduce hospitalizations for HF in either group. Patients with a history of HF are a high-risk group that does not appear to benefit from PCSK9 inhibition after ACS.

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Alirocumab After Acute Coronary Syndrome According to Achieved Level of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES Trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent international guidelines have lowered recommended target levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) for patients at very high risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). However, uncertainty persists whether additional benefit results from achieved LDL-C levels below the conventional targets. Inferences from previous analyses are limited because patients who achieve lower versus higher LDL-C on lipid-lowering therapy differ in other characteristics prognostic for MACE and because few achieved very low LDL-C levels. To overcome these limitations, we performed a propensity score-matching analysis of the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab) which compared alirocumab with placebo in 18 924 patients with recent acute coronary syndrome receiving intensive or maximum-tolerated statin treatment. METHODS: Patients on alirocumab were classified in prespecified strata of LDL-C achieved at 4 months of treatment: <25 (n=3357), 25 to 50 (n=3692), or >50 mg/dL (n=2197). For each stratum, MACE (coronary heart disease death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina) after month 4 was compared in patients receiving placebo with similar baseline characteristics and adherence by using 1:1 propensity score matching. RESULTS: Across achieved LDL-C strata of the alirocumab group, patients differed by baseline LDL-C, lipoprotein(a), use of intensive statin therapy, study medication adherence, and other demographic, medical history, biometric, and laboratory criteria. After propensity score matching, characteristics were similar in corresponding patients of the alirocumab and placebo groups. Treatment hazard ratio, 95% CI, and absolute risk reduction (number per 100 patient-years) for MACE were similar in those with achieved LDL-C <25 mg/dL (hazard ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.62-0.89]; absolute risk reduction, 0.92) or 25 to 50 mg/dL (hazard ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.64-0.87]; absolute risk reduction, 1.05). Patients with achieved LDL-C >50 mg/dL had poorer adherence and derived less benefit (hazard ratio, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.73-1.04]; absolute risk reduction, 0.62). No safety concerns were associated with a limited period of LDL-C levels <15 mg/dL. CONCLUSIONS: After accounting for differences in baseline characteristics and adherence, patients treated with alirocumab who achieved LDL-C levels <25 mg/dL had a reduction in the risk of MACE that was similar to that of patients who achieved LDL-C levels of 25 to 50 mg/dL. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01663402.

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.