Improving academic leadership and oversight in large industry-sponsored clinical trials: the ARO-CRO model.

Standards for clinical trial design, execution, and publication have increased in recent years. However, the current structure for interaction among the pharmaceutical sponsor funding a drug or device development program, the contract research organization (CRO) that typically assists in executing the trial, regulatory agencies, and academicians, provides inadequate leadership and oversight of the development process. Conventional academic steering committees are not provided with the independent infrastructure by which to verify statistical analyses and conclusions regarding safety and efficacy. We propose an alternative approach centered on partnerships between CROs and university-based academic research organizations (AROs). In this model, the ARO takes responsibility for processes that address journal requirements and regulatory expectations for independent academic oversight (including oversight of Steering Committee and Data and Safety Monitoring Board activities), whereas the CRO provides infrastructure for efficient trial execution, site monitoring, and data management. The ARO engages academic experts throughout the trial process and minimizes conflicts of interest in individual industry relationships via diversification of sponsors, agents, and therapeutic areas. Although numerous models can be entertained, the ARO-CRO model is uniquely structured to meet the demand for greater assurance of integrity in clinical trials and the needs of each stakeholder in the process.

Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Ticagrelor is an oral, reversible, direct-acting inhibitor of the adenosine diphosphate receptor P2Y12 that has a more rapid onset and more pronounced platelet inhibition than clopidogrel. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial, we compared ticagrelor (180-mg loading dose, 90 mg twice daily thereafter) and clopidogrel (300-to-600-mg loading dose, 75 mg daily thereafter) for the prevention of cardiovascular events in 18,624 patients admitted to the hospital with an acute coronary syndrome, with or without ST-segment elevation. RESULTS: At 12 months, the primary end point--a composite of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke--had occurred in 9.8% of patients receiving ticagrelor as compared with 11.7% of those receiving clopidogrel (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 0.92; P<0.001). Predefined hierarchical testing of secondary end points showed significant differences in the rates of other composite end points, as well as myocardial infarction alone (5.8% in the ticagrelor group vs. 6.9% in the clopidogrel group, P=0.005) and death from vascular causes (4.0% vs. 5.1%, P=0.001) but not stroke alone (1.5% vs. 1.3%, P=0.22). The rate of death from any cause was also reduced with ticagrelor (4.5%, vs. 5.9% with clopidogrel; P<0.001). No significant difference in the rates of major bleeding was found between the ticagrelor and clopidogrel groups (11.6% and 11.2%, respectively; P=0.43), but ticagrelor was associated with a higher rate of major bleeding not related to coronary-artery bypass grafting (4.5% vs. 3.8%, P=0.03), including more instances of fatal intracranial bleeding and fewer of fatal bleeding of other types. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who have an acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation, treatment with ticagrelor as compared with clopidogrel significantly reduced the rate of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke without an increase in the rate of overall major bleeding but with an increase in the rate of non-procedure-related bleeding. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00391872.)

Comparison of ticagrelor, the first reversible oral P2Y(12) receptor antagonist, with clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes: Rationale, design, and baseline characteristics of the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial.

BACKGROUND: Antiplatelet therapy is essential treatment for acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Current therapies, however, have important limitations affecting their clinical success. Ticagrelor, the first reversible oral P2Y(12) receptor antagonist, provides faster, greater, and more consistent adenosine diphosphate-receptor inhibition than clopidogrel. The phase III PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial is designed to test the hypothesis that ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel will result in a lower risk of recurrent thrombotic events in a broad patient population with ACS. METHODS: PLATO is an international, randomized, double-blind, event-driven trial involving >18,000 patients hospitalized for ST-elevation ACS with scheduled primary percutaneous coronary intervention or for non-ST-elevation ACS. After loading doses of ticagrelor 180 mg or clopidogrel 300 mg in a double-blind, double-dummy fashion (with provision for additional 300 mg clopidogrel at percutaneous coronary intervention), patients will receive ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily or clopidogrel 75 mg once daily for 6 to 12 months on top of acetylsalicylic acid. The primary efficacy end point is time to first occurrence of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The primary safety variable is PLATO-defined major bleeding. An extensive substudy program will explore the pathophysiology of ACS, indicators of prognosis and response to treatment, mechanisms of effect and safety of the study medications, health economics, and quality of life. CONCLUSION: The PLATO study will provide a pivotal comparison of the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor with those of clopidogrel in ACS patients, together with extensive information on treatment outcomes in different subsets of ACS in a broad patient population.

Pioglitazone use and heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes and preexisting cardiovascular disease: data from the PROactive study (PROactive 08).

OBJECTIVE: PROspective pioglitAzone Clinical Trial In macroVascular Events (PROactive) enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes and preexisting cardiovascular disease. These patients were at high risk for heart failure, so any therapeutic benefit could potentially be offset by risk of associated heart failure mortality. We analyzed the heart failure cases to assess the effects of treatment on morbidity and mortality after reports of serious heart failure. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: PROactive was an outcome study in 5,238 patients randomized to pioglitazone or placebo. Patients with New York Heart Association Class II-IV heart failure at screening were excluded. A serious adverse event of heart failure was defined as heart failure that required hospitalization or prolonged a hospitalization stay, was fatal or life threatening, or resulted in persistent significant disability or incapacity. Heart failure risk was evaluated by multivariate regression. RESULTS: More pioglitazone (5.7%) than placebo patients (4.1%) had a serious heart failure event during the study (P = 0.007). However, mortality due to heart failure was similar (25 of 2,605 [0.96%] for pioglitazone vs. 22 of 2,633 [0.84%] for placebo; P = 0.639). Among patients with a serious heart failure event, subsequent all-cause mortality was proportionately lower with pioglitazone (40 of 149 [26.8%] vs. 37 of 108 [34.3%] with placebo; P = 0.1338). Proportionately fewer pioglitazone patients with serious heart failure went on to have an event in the primary (47.7% with pioglitazone vs. 57.4% with placebo; P = 0.0593) or main secondary end point (34.9% with pioglitazone vs. 47.2% with placebo; P = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Although the incidence of serious heart failure was increased with pioglitazone versus placebo in the total PROactive population of patients with type 2 diabetes and macrovascular disease, subsequent mortality or morbidity was not increased in patients with serious heart failure.

The effect of pioglitazone on recurrent myocardial infarction in 2,445 patients with type 2 diabetes and previous myocardial infarction: results from the PROactive (PROactive 05) Study.

OBJECTIVES: This analysis from the PROactive (PROspective pioglitAzone Clinical Trial In macroVascular Events) study assesses the effects of pioglitazone on mortality and macrovascular morbidity in patients with type 2 diabetes and a previous myocardial infarction (MI). BACKGROUND: People with type 2 diabetes have an increased incidence of MI compared with the general population. Those with diabetes and MI have a worse prognosis than nondiabetic patients with cardiovascular disease. METHODS: The PROactive study was a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 5,238 patients with type 2 diabetes and macrovascular disease. Patients were randomized to either pioglitazone or placebo in addition to their other glucose-lowering and cardiovascular medication. Treatment of diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension was encouraged according to the International Diabetes Federation guidelines. Patients were followed for a mean of 2.85 years. The primary end point was the time to first occurrence of macrovascular events or death. Of the total cohort, the subgroup of patients who had a previous MI (n = 2,445 [46.7%]; n = 1,230 in the pioglitazone group and n = 1,215 in the placebo group) was evaluated using prespecified and post-hoc analyses. RESULTS: Pioglitazone had a statistically significant beneficial effect on the prespecified end point of fatal and nonfatal MI (28% risk reduction [RR]; p = 0.045) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (37% RR; p = 0.035). There was a 19% RR in the cardiac composite end point of nonfatal MI (excluding silent MI), coronary revascularization, ACS, and cardiac death (p = 0.033). The difference in the primary end point defined in the main PROactive study did not reach significance in the MI population (12% RR; p = 0.135). The rates of heart failure requiring hospitalization were 7.5% (92 of 1,230) with pioglitazone and 5.2% (63 of 1,215) with placebo. Fatal heart failure rates were similar (1.4% [17 of the 92] with pioglitazone versus 0.9% [11 of the 63] with placebo). CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes and previous MI, pioglitazone significantly reduced the occurrence of fatal and nonfatal MI and ACS. (PROspective pioglitAzone Clinical Trial In macroVascular Events; http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00174993?order = 1; ISRCTN NCT00174993).

Effects of ranolazine on recurrent cardiovascular events in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: the MERLIN-TIMI 36 randomized trial.

CONTEXT: Ranolazine is a novel antianginal agent that reduces ischemia in patients with chronic angina but has not been studied in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of ranolazine during long-term treatment of patients with non-ST-elevation ACS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational clinical trial of 6560 patients within 48 hours of ischemic symptoms who were treated with ranolazine (initiated intravenously and followed by oral ranolazine extended-release 1000 mg twice daily, n = 3279) or matching placebo (n = 3281), and followed up for a median of 348 days in the Metabolic Efficiency With Ranolazine for Less Ischemia in Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes (MERLIN)-TIMI 36 trial between October 8, 2004, and February 14, 2007. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), or recurrent ischemia through the end of study. The major safety end points were death from any cause and symptomatic documented arrhythmia. RESULTS: The primary end point occurred in 696 patients (21.8%) in the ranolazine group and 753 patients (23.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-1.02; P = .11). The major secondary end point (cardiovascular death, MI, or severe recurrent ischemia) occurred in 602 patients (18.7%) in the ranolazine group and 625 (19.2%) in the placebo group (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.86-1.08; P = .50). Cardiovascular death or MI occurred in 338 patients (10.4%) allocated to ranolazine and 343 patients (10.5%) allocated to placebo (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.85-1.15; P = .87). Recurrent ischemia was reduced in the ranolazine group (430 [13.9%]) compared with the placebo group (494 [16.1%]; HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99; P = .03). QTc prolongation requiring a reduction in the dose of intravenous drug occurred in 31 patients (0.9%) receiving ranolazine compared with 10 patients (0.3%) receiving placebo. Symptomatic documented arrhythmias did not differ between the ranolazine (99 [3.0%]) and placebo (102 [3.1%]) groups (P = .84). No difference in total mortality was observed with ranolazine compared with placebo (172 vs 175; HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.80-1.22; P = .91). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of ranolazine to standard treatment for ACS was not effective in reducing major cardiovascular events. Ranolazine did not adversely affect the risk of all-cause death or symptomatic documented arrhythmia. Our findings provide support for the safety and efficacy of ranolazine as antianginal therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00099788.

Drug-induced thrombocytopenia and thrombosis: evidence from patients receiving an oral glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor in the Orbofiban in Patients with Unstable coronary Syndromes- (OPUS-TIMI 16) trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess etiology and impact of thrombocytopenia in a large oral glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitor trial. BACKGROUND: Heparin is known to cause thrombocytopenia, and in some of these patients thrombosis. GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors are also associated with thrombocytopenia. METHODS: The Orbofiban in Patients with Unstable Coronary Syndromes (OPUS-TIMI 16) Trial randomized 10,392 patients with ACS to the oral GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor orbofiban or placebo. Patients were followed for a minimum of ten months. Thrombocytopenia was defined prospectively as a platelet count < 80,000. RESULTS: Thrombocytopenia was rare in the OPUS-TIMI 16 trial (0.68% at Day 30 and 0.80% at 1 year), but more common in patients treated with orbofiban (0.92%) compared with those treated with placebo (0.2%), p < 0.001. Patients who developed thrombocytopenia had higher rates of death (11.6% vs. 1.7%, p < 0.001), recurrent MI (12.1% vs. 2.8%, p < 0.001), intracranial hemorrhage (2.9% vs. 0.0%, p < 0.001), and major or severe bleeding (19.0% vs. 2.0%, p < 0.001) at 30 days (with similar results at one year). CONCLUSION: Thrombocytopenia, though uncommon, was associated with orbofiban use and an increased risk of bleeding, but also death and MI. This study provides further evidence that drugs that lead to thrombocytopenia are, in a significant proportion of patients associated with thrombotic events.

Evaluation of a novel anti-ischemic agent in acute coronary syndromes: design and rationale for the Metabolic Efficiency with Ranolazine for Less Ischemia in Non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (MERLIN)-TIMI 36 trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in antithrombotic therapies and invasive technology, the risk of recurrent ischemic complications in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACSs) remains substantial. Ranolazine is a novel agent that inhibits the late sodium current thereby reducing cellular sodium and calcium overload and has been shown to reduce ischemia in patients with chronic stable angina. STUDY DESIGN: MERLIN-TIMI 36 is a phase III, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multinational clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ranolazine during long-term treatment of patients with NSTE-ACS receiving standard therapy (N = 6500). Eligible patients are randomized 1:1 to ranolazine or matched placebo, initiated as 200 mg intravenously over 1 hour, followed by an 80-mg/h infusion (40 mg/h for patients with severe renal insufficiency) for up to 96 hours and oral ranolazine ER 1000 mg BID or matched placebo until the end of study. The primary end point is the time to first occurrence of any element of the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or recurrent ischemia. Secondary end points include ischemia on Holter monitoring, hospitalization for new or worsening heart failure, quality of life measures, and exercise performance. The evaluation of long-term safety will include death from any cause and symptomatic documented arrhythmia. Recruitment began in October 2004. The trial will continue until 730 major cardiovascular events and 310 deaths are recorded with expected completion in 24 to 28 months. CONCLUSIONS: MERLIN-TIMI 36 will evaluate the role of ranolazine in the acute and chronic management of patients presenting with NSTE-ACS.

Cardiovascular outcomes with atrial-based pacing compared with ventricular pacing: meta-analysis of randomized trials, using individual patient data.

BACKGROUND: Several randomized trials have compared atrial-based (dual-chamber or atrial) pacing with ventricular pacing in patients with bradycardia. No trial has shown a mortality reduction, and only 1 small trial suggested a reduction in stroke. The goal of this review was to determine whether atrial-based pacing prevents major cardiovascular events. METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic review was performed of publications since 1980. For inclusion, trials had to compare an atrial-based with a ventricular-based pacing mode; use a randomized, controlled, parallel design; and have data on mortality, stroke, heart failure, or atrial fibrillation. Individual patient data were obtained from 5 of the 8 identified studies, representing 95% of patients in the 8 trials, and a total of 35 000 patient-years of follow-up. There was no significant heterogeneity among the results of the individual trials. There was no significant reduction in mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.03; P=0.19) or heart failure (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.03; P=0.15) with atrial-based pacing. There was a significant reduction in atrial fibrillation (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.89; P=0.00003) and a reduction in stroke that was of borderline significance (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.99; P=0.035). There was no convincing evidence that any patient subgroup received special benefit from atrial-based pacing. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with ventricular pacing, the use of atrial-based pacing does not improve survival or reduce heart failure or cardiovascular death. However, atrial-based pacing reduces the incidence of atrial fibrillation and may modestly reduce stroke.

Relationship between uncontrolled risk factors and C-reactive protein levels in patients receiving standard or intensive statin therapy for acute coronary syndromes in the PROVE IT-TIMI 22 trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate what set of factors correlate with higher or lower C-reactive protein (CRP) levels in patients receiving standard and intensive statin therapy. BACKGROUND: C-reactive protein levels in blood are becoming recognized as a potential means of monitoring cardiovascular risk. Although statin therapy is known to reduce CRP levels, many patients have a high CRP level despite statin therapy. METHODS: This study was a cross-sectional study of 2,885 patients from the Pravastatin or Atorvastatin Evaluation and Infection Therapy-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 22 (PROVE IT-TIMI 22) trial, which assessed the relationship between uncontrolled cardiovascular risk factors and CRP level at four months after enrollment. RESULTS: In a multivariate model, several risk factors were weakly but independently associated with higher CRP levels: age, gender (with or without hormone replacement therapy), body mass index >25 kg/m2, smoking, low-density lipoprotein > or =70 mg/dl, glucose >110 mg/dl, high-density lipoprotein <50 mg/dl, triglycerides >150 mg/dl, and the intensity of statin therapy. A direct relationship between the number of uncontrolled risk factors present and CRP levels (p < 0.0001) was observed for both statin regimens. Despite the presence of each uncontrolled risk factor, prior randomization to intensive statin therapy was associated with a lower CRP level (p < 0.0001). Across all strata, defined by the number of uncontrolled risk factors present, CRP levels were lower among those receiving intensive statin therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The use of intensive statin therapy lead to a lower CRP level independent of the presence of single or multiple cardiovascular risk factors. Even among patients receiving intensive statin therapy, a lower CRP level was observed in patients with the fewest coronary risk factors present, suggesting that control of multiple risk factors may be a means to further achieve lower CRP levels.

Secondary prevention of macrovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes in the PROactive Study (PROspective pioglitAzone Clinical Trial In macroVascular Events): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with type 2 diabetes are at high risk of fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction and stroke. There is indirect evidence that agonists of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPAR gamma) could reduce macrovascular complications. Our aim, therefore, was to ascertain whether pioglitazone reduces macrovascular morbidity and mortality in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We did a prospective, randomised controlled trial in 5238 patients with type 2 diabetes who had evidence of macrovascular disease. We recruited patients from primary-care practices and hospitals. We assigned patients to oral pioglitazone titrated from 15 mg to 45 mg (n=2605) or matching placebo (n=2633), to be taken in addition to their glucose-lowering drugs and other medications. Our primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, non fatal myocardial infarction (including silent myocardial infarction), stroke, acute coronary syndrome, endovascular or surgical intervention in the coronary or leg arteries, and amputation above the ankle. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN NCT00174993. FINDINGS: Two patients were lost to follow-up, but were included in analyses. The average time of observation was 34.5 months. 514 of 2605 patients in the pioglitazone group and 572 of 2633 patients in the placebo group had at least one event in the primary composite endpoint (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80-1.02, p=0.095). The main secondary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and stroke. 301 patients in the pioglitazone group and 358 in the placebo group reached this endpoint (0.84, 0.72-0.98, p=0.027). Overall safety and tolerability was good with no change in the safety profile of pioglitazone identified. 6% (149 of 2065) and 4% (108 of 2633) of those in the pioglitazone and placebo groups, respectively, were admitted to hospital with heart failure; mortality rates from heart failure did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: Pioglitazone reduces the composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes who have a high risk of macrovascular events.

Effect on survival and hospitalization of initiating treatment for chronic heart failure with bisoprolol followed by enalapril, as compared with the opposite sequence: results of the randomized Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study (CIBIS) III.

BACKGROUND: In patients with chronic heart failure (CHF), a beta-blocker is generally added to a regimen containing an angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitor. It is unknown whether beta-blockade as initial therapy may be as useful. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomized 1010 patients with mild to moderate CHF and left ventricular ejection fraction < or =35%, who were not receiving ACE inhibitor, beta-blocker, or angiotensin receptor blocker therapy, to open-label monotherapy with either bisoprolol (target dose 10 mg QD; n=505) or enalapril (target dose 10 mg BID; n=505) for 6 months, followed by their combination for 6 to 24 months. The 2 strategies were blindly compared with regard to the combined primary end point of all-cause mortality or hospitalization and with regard to each of these end point components individually. Bisoprolol-first treatment was noninferior to enalapril-first treatment if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the absolute between-group difference was <5%, corresponding to a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.17. In the intention-to-treat sample, the primary end point occurred in 178 patients allocated to bisoprolol-first treatment versus 186 allocated to enalapril-first treatment (absolute difference -1.6%, 95% CI -7.6 to 4.4%, HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.16). In the per-protocol sample, 163 patients allocated to bisoprolol-first treatment had a primary end point, versus 165 allocated to enalapril-first treatment (absolute difference -0.7%, 95% CI -6.6 to 5.1%, HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.21). With bisoprolol-first treatment, 65 patients died, versus 73 with enalapril-first treatment (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.22), and 151 versus 157 patients were hospitalized (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.19). CONCLUSIONS: Although noninferiority of bisoprolol-first versus enalapril-first treatment was not proven in the per-protocol analysis, our results indicate that it may be as safe and efficacious to initiate treatment for CHF with bisoprolol as with enalapril.

Antibiotic treatment of Chlamydia pneumoniae after acute coronary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Chlamydia pneumoniae has been found within atherosclerotic plaques, and elevated titers of antibody to this organism have been linked to a higher risk of coronary events. Pilot studies have suggested that antibiotic treatment may reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. METHODS: We enrolled 4162 patients who had been hospitalized for an acute coronary syndrome within the preceding 10 days and evaluated the efficacy of long-term treatment with gatifloxacin, a bactericidal antibiotic known to be effective against C. pneumoniae, in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Subjects received 400 mg of gatifloxacin daily during an initial 2-week course of therapy that began 2 weeks after randomization, followed by a 10-day course every month for the duration of the trial (mean duration, 2 years), or placebo. The primary end point was a composite of death from all causes, myocardial infarction, documented unstable angina requiring rehospitalization, revascularization (performed at least 30 days after randomization), and stroke. RESULTS: A Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that the rates of primary-end-point events at two years were 23.7 percent in the gatifloxacin group and 25.1 percent in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.84 to 1.08; P=0.41). No benefit was seen in any of the prespecified secondary end points or in any of the prespecified subgroups, including patients with elevated titers to C. pneumoniae or C-reactive protein. CONCLUSIONS: Despite long-term treatment with a bactericidal antibiotic effective against C. pneumoniae, no reduction in the rate of cardiovascular events was observed.

Effects of metoprolol and carvedilol on cause-specific mortality and morbidity in patients with chronic heart failure--COMET.

BACKGROUND: Beta-blockers with different receptor bindings reduce mortality in patients with chronic heart failure. We compared the effects of the beta1-blocker metoprolol tartrate and the beta1-, beta2-, and alpha1-blocker carvedilol. METHODS: In a randomized double-blind design, 3029 patients with chronic congestive heart failure requiring diuretic therapy and with left ventricular dysfunction were randomized to treatment with carvedilol (n = 1511) or metoprolol tartrate (n = 1518) and titrated to target doses of 25 mg of carvedilol twice daily or 50 mg of metoprolol tartrate twice daily. The main outcome measures were total mortality and the combination of mortality or hospitalization for any cause. Secondary end points were cardiovascular death, combinations of morbidity and mortality, New York Heart Association class, worsening of heart failure, hospitalizations, and discontinuation of study therapy. RESULTS: A total of 512 and 600 patients in the carvedilol group and metoprolol group, respectively, died (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.74-0.93, P = .0017). Cardiovascular death was reduced by carvedilol (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.90, P = .0004). There were fewer sudden deaths and deaths caused by circulatory failure or by stroke in the carvedilol group. There was no difference in all-cause hospitalizations or in worsening heart failure between treatment groups. The incidence of fatal or nonfatal acute myocardial infarction was significantly lower in the carvedilol group (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52-0.97, P = .03). Discontinuations of study therapy were similar in the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Compared with metoprolol tartrate, carvedilol reduced cardiovascular mortality, sudden death, death caused by circulatory failure, death caused by stroke, as well as fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarctions.

Addition of clopidogrel to aspirin and fibrinolytic therapy for myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation.

BACKGROUND: A substantial proportion of patients receiving fibrinolytic therapy for myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation have inadequate reperfusion or reocclusion of the infarct-related artery, leading to an increased risk of complications and death. METHODS: We enrolled 3491 patients, 18 to 75 years of age, who presented within 12 hours after the onset of an ST-elevation myocardial infarction and randomly assigned them to receive clopidogrel (300-mg loading dose, followed by 75 mg once daily) or placebo. Patients received a fibrinolytic agent, aspirin, and when appropriate, heparin (dispensed according to body weight) and were scheduled to undergo angiography 48 to 192 hours after the start of study medication. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of an occluded infarct-related artery (defined by a Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow grade of 0 or 1) on angiography or death or recurrent myocardial infarction before angiography. RESULTS: The rates of the primary efficacy end point were 21.7 percent in the placebo group and 15.0 percent in the clopidogrel group, representing an absolute reduction of 6.7 percentage points in the rate and a 36 percent reduction in the odds of the end point with clopidogrel therapy (95 percent confidence interval, 24 to 47 percent; P<0.001). By 30 days, clopidogrel therapy reduced the odds of the composite end point of death from cardiovascular causes, recurrent myocardial infarction, or recurrent ischemia leading to the need for urgent revascularization by 20 percent (from 14.1 to 11.6 percent, P=0.03). The rates of major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients 75 years of age or younger who have myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation and who receive aspirin and a standard fibrinolytic regimen, the addition of clopidogrel improves the patency rate of the infarct-related artery and reduces ischemic complications.

The prospective pioglitazone clinical trial in macrovascular events (PROactive): can pioglitazone reduce cardiovascular events in diabetes? Study design and baseline characteristics of 5238 patients.

OBJECTIVE: The PROspective pioglitAzone Clinical Trial In macroVascular Events (PROactive) assesses the effect of pioglitazone, a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonist, with anti-inflammatory and vascular properties, on the secondary prevention of macrovascular events in type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: PROactive is an on-going randomized, double-blind outcome study in patients with type 2 diabetes managed with diet and/or oral blood glucose-lowering drugs (combination of oral agents with insulin is permitted) who have a history of macrovascular disease. Patients are randomized to receive pioglitazone (forced titration from 15 to 30 to 45 mg, depending on tolerability) or placebo in addition to existing therapy. The primary end point is the time from randomization to occurrence of a new macrovascular event or death. Follow-up is estimated to span 4 years. RESULTS: A total of 5238 patients have been randomized from 19 countries. At entry into the study, patients enrolled are a mean age of 61.8 years, with type 2 diabetes for a mean of 9.5 years; 60.9 and 61.5% are taking metformin or a sulfonylurea, respectively; and 33.6% are using insulin in addition to oral glucose-lowering drugs. The majority of patients are men (66.1%). Patients are required to meet one or more of entry criteria, as follows: >6 months' history of myocardial infarction (46.7%); coronary artery revascularization (30.8%), stroke (18.8%), or acute coronary syndrome for >3 months (13.7%); other evidence of coronary artery disease (48.1%); or peripheral arterial occlusive disease (19.9%). One-half (48.5%) of the patients have two or more of these risk factors. Three-quarters (75.4%) have hypertension, and 58.8% are current or previous smokers. CONCLUSIONS: The cohort of patients enrolled in PROactive is a typical type 2 diabetic population at high risk of further macrovascular events. The characteristics of this population are ideal for assessing the ability of pioglitazone to reduce the cardiovascular risk of patients with type 2 diabetes.

Intensive versus moderate lipid lowering with statins after acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Lipid-lowering therapy with statins reduces the risk of cardiovascular events, but the optimal level of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol is unclear. METHODS: We enrolled 4162 patients who had been hospitalized for an acute coronary syndrome within the preceding 10 days and compared 40 mg of pravastatin daily (standard therapy) with 80 mg of atorvastatin daily (intensive therapy). The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, documented unstable angina requiring rehospitalization, revascularization (performed at least 30 days after randomization), and stroke. The study was designed to establish the noninferiority of pravastatin as compared with atorvastatin with respect to the time to an end-point event. Follow-up lasted 18 to 36 months (mean, 24). RESULTS: The median LDL cholesterol level achieved during treatment was 95 mg per deciliter (2.46 mmol per liter) in the standard-dose pravastatin group and 62 mg per deciliter (1.60 mmol per liter) in the high-dose atorvastatin group (P<0.001). Kaplan-Meier estimates of the rates of the primary end point at two years were 26.3 percent in the pravastatin group and 22.4 percent in the atorvastatin group, reflecting a 16 percent reduction in the hazard ratio in favor of atorvastatin (P=0.005; 95 percent confidence interval, 5 to 26 percent). The study did not meet the prespecified criterion for equivalence but did identify the superiority of the more intensive regimen. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who have recently had an acute coronary syndrome, an intensive lipid-lowering statin regimen provides greater protection against death or major cardiovascular events than does a standard regimen. These findings indicate that such patients benefit from early and continued lowering of LDL cholesterol to levels substantially below current target levels.

Comparison of carvedilol and metoprolol on clinical outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure in the Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET): randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Beta blockers reduce mortality in patients who have chronic heart failure, systolic dysfunction, and are on background treatment with diuretics and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. We aimed to compare the effects of carvedilol and metoprolol on clinical outcome. METHODS: In a multicentre, double-blind, and randomised parallel group trial, we assigned 1511 patients with chronic heart failure to treatment with carvedilol (target dose 25 mg twice daily) and 1518 to metoprolol (metoprolol tartrate, target dose 50 mg twice daily). Patients were required to have chronic heart failure (NYHA II-IV), previous admission for a cardiovascular reason, an ejection fraction of less than 0.35, and to have been treated optimally with diuretics and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors unless not tolerated. The primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality or all-cause admission. Analysis was done by intention to treat. FINDINGS: The mean study duration was 58 months (SD 6). The mean ejection fraction was 0.26 (0.07) and the mean age 62 years (11). The all-cause mortality was 34% (512 of 1511) for carvedilol and 40% (600 of 1518) for metoprolol (hazard ratio 0.83 [95% CI 0.74-0.93], p=0.0017). The reduction of all-cause mortality was consistent across predefined subgroups. The composite endpoint of mortality or all-cause admission occurred in 1116 (74%) of 1511 on carvedilol and in 1160 (76%) of 1518 on metoprolol (0.94 [0.86-1.02], p=0.122). Incidence of side-effects and drug withdrawals did not differ by much between the two study groups. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that carvedilol extends survival compared with metoprolol.