Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes with Efpeglenatide in Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Four glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists that are structurally similar to human GLP-1 have been shown to reduce the risk of adverse cardiovascular events among persons with type 2 diabetes. The effect of an exendin-based GLP-1 receptor agonist, efpeglenatide, on cardiovascular and renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes who are also at high risk for adverse cardiovascular events is uncertain. METHODS: In this randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted at 344 sites across 28 countries, we evaluated efpeglenatide in participants with type 2 diabetes and either a history of cardiovascular disease or current kidney disease (defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 25.0 to 59.9 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area) plus at least one other cardiovascular risk factor. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive weekly subcutaneous injections of efpeglenatide at a dose of 4 or 6 mg or placebo. Randomization was stratified according to use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. The primary outcome was the first major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular or undetermined causes). RESULTS: A total of 4076 participants were enrolled; 2717 were assigned to receive efpeglenatide and 1359 to receive placebo. During a median follow-up of 1.81 years, an incident MACE occurred in 189 participants (7.0%) assigned to receive efpeglenatide (3.9 events per 100 person-years) and 125 participants (9.2%) assigned to receive placebo (5.3 events per 100 person-years) (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.92; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P = 0.007 for superiority). A composite renal outcome event (a decrease in kidney function or macroalbuminuria) occurred in 353 participants (13.0%) assigned to receive efpeglenatide and in 250 participants (18.4%) assigned to receive placebo (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.79; P<0.001). Diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, or bloating occurred more frequently with efpeglenatide than with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving participants with type 2 diabetes who had either a history of cardiovascular disease or current kidney disease plus at least one other cardiovascular risk factor, the risk of cardiovascular events was lower among those who received weekly subcutaneous injections of efpeglenatide at a dose of 4 or 6 mg than among those who received placebo. (Funded by Sanofi; AMPLITUDE-O ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03496298.).

Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Patient-Level Network Meta-Analyses of Randomized Clinical Trials With Interaction Testing by Age and Sex.

BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preferred over warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Meta-analyses using individual patient data offer substantial advantages over study-level data. METHODS: We used individual patient data from the COMBINE AF (A Collaboration Between Multiple Institutions to Better Investigate Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Use in Atrial Fibrillation) database, which includes all patients randomized in the 4 pivotal trials of DOACs versus warfarin in atrial fibrillation (RE-LY [Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy], ROCKET AF [Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation], ARISTOTLE [Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation], and ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 [Effective Anticoagulation With Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48]), to perform network meta-analyses using a stratified Cox model with random effects comparing standard-dose DOAC, lower-dose DOAC, and warfarin. Hazard ratios (HRs [95% CIs]) were calculated for efficacy and safety outcomes. Covariate-by-treatment interaction was estimated for categorical covariates and for age as a continuous covariate, stratified by sex. RESULTS: A total of 71 683 patients were included (29 362 on standard-dose DOAC, 13 049 on lower-dose DOAC, and 29 272 on warfarin). Compared with warfarin, standard-dose DOACs were associated with a significantly lower hazard of stroke or systemic embolism (883/29 312 [3.01%] versus 1080/29 229 [3.69%]; HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.74-0.89]), death (2276/29 312 [7.76%] versus 2460/29 229 [8.42%]; HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.87-0.97]), and intracranial bleeding (184/29 270 [0.63%] versus 409/29 187 [1.40%]; HR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.37-0.56]), but no statistically different hazard of major bleeding (1479/29 270 [5.05%] versus 1733/29 187 [5.94%]; HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.74-1.01]), whereas lower-dose DOACs were associated with no statistically different hazard of stroke or systemic embolism (531/13 049 [3.96%] versus 1080/29 229 [3.69%]; HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.95-1.19]) but a lower hazard of intracranial bleeding (55/12 985 [0.42%] versus 409/29 187 [1.40%]; HR, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.21-0.37]), death (1082/13 049 [8.29%] versus 2460/29 229 [8.42%]; HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.83-0.97]), and major bleeding (564/12 985 [4.34%] versus 1733/29 187 [5.94%]; HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.45-0.88]). Treatment effects for standard- and lower-dose DOACs versus warfarin were consistent across age and sex for stroke or systemic embolism and death, whereas standard-dose DOACs were favored in patients with no history of vitamin K antagonist use (P=0.01) and lower creatinine clearance (P=0.09). For major bleeding, standard-dose DOACs were favored in patients with lower body weight (P=0.02). In the continuous covariate analysis, younger patients derived greater benefits from standard-dose (interaction P=0.02) and lower-dose DOACs (interaction P=0.01) versus warfarin. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with warfarin, DOACs have more favorable efficacy and safety profiles among patients with atrial fibrillation.

A hybrid automated event adjudication system for clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: In clinical trials, event adjudication is a process to review and confirm the accuracy of outcomes reported by site investigators. Despite efforts to automate the communication between a clinical-data-and-coordination center and an event adjudication committee, the review and confirmation of outcomes, as the core function of the process, still fully rely on human labor. To address this issue, we present an automated event adjudication system and its application in two randomized controlled trials. METHODS: Centrally executed by a clinical-data-and-coordination center, the automated event adjudication system automatedly assessed and classified outcomes in a clinical data management system. By checking clinically predefined criteria, the automated event adjudication system either confirmed or unconfirmed an outcome and automatedly updated its status in the database. It also served as a management tool to assist staff to oversee the process of event adjudication. The system has been applied in: (1) the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial and (2) the New Approach riVaroxaban Inhibition of Factor Xa in a Global trial versus Aspirin to prevenT Embolism in Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source (NAVIGATE ESUS) trial. The automated event adjudication system first screened outcomes reported on a case report form and confirmed those with data matched to preset definitions. For selected primary efficacy, secondary, and safety outcomes, the unconfirmed cases were referred to a human event adjudication committee for a final decision. In the New Approach riVaroxaban Inhibition of Factor Xa in a Global trial versus Aspirin to prevenT Embolism in Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source (NAVIGATE ESUS) trial, human adjudicators were given priority to review cases, while the automated event adjudication system took the lead in the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial. RESULTS: Outcomes that were adjudicated in a hybrid model are discussed here. The COMPASS automated event adjudication system adjudicated 3283 primary efficacy outcomes and confirmed 1652 (50.3%): 132 (21.1%) strokes, 522 (53%) myocardial infarctions, and 998 (59.7%) causes of deaths. The NAVIGATE ESUS one adjudicated 737 cases of selected outcomes and confirmed 383 (52%): 219 (51.5%) strokes, 34 (42.5%) myocardial infarctions, 73 (54.9%) causes of deaths, and 57 (57.6%) major bleedings. After one deducts the time needed for migrating the system to a new study, the automated event adjudication system helped to reduce the time required for human review from approximately 1303 to 716.5 h for the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies trial and from 387 to 196 h for the New Approach riVaroxaban Inhibition of Factor Xa in a Global trial versus Aspirin to prevenT Embolism in Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source trial. CONCLUSION: The automated event adjudication system in combination with human adjudicators provides a streamlined and efficient approach to event adjudication in clinical trials. To immediately apply automated event adjudication, one can first consider the automated event adjudication system and involve human assistance for cases unconfirmed by the former.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Estimating individual lifetime benefit and bleeding risk of adding rivaroxaban to aspirin for patients with stable cardiovascular disease: results from the COMPASS trial.

AIMS: Adding rivaroxaban to aspirin in patients with stable atherosclerotic disease reduces the recurrence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) but increases the risk of major bleeding. The aim of this study was to estimate the individual lifetime treatment benefit and harm of adding low-dose rivaroxaban to aspirin in patients with stable cardiovascular disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with established CVD from the COMPASS trial (n = 27 390) and SMART prospective cohort study (n = 8139) were used. Using the pre-existing lifetime SMART-REACH model for recurrent CVD, and a newly developed Fine and Gray competing risk-adjusted lifetime model for major bleeding, individual treatment effects from adding low-dose rivaroxaban to aspirin in patients with stable CVD were estimated, expressed in terms of (i) life-years free of stroke or myocardial infarction (MI) gained; and (ii) life-years free from major bleeding lost. Calibration of the SMART-REACH model for prediction of recurrent CVD events in the COMPASS study was good. The major bleeding risk model as derived in the COMPASS trial showed good external calibration in the SMART cohort. Predicted individual gain in life expectancy free of stroke or MI from added low-dose rivaroxaban had a median of 16 months (range 1-48 months), while predicted individualized lifetime lost in terms of major bleeding had a median of 2 months (range 0-20 months). CONCLUSION: There is a wide distribution in lifetime gain and harm from adding low-dose rivaroxaban to aspirin in individual patients with stable CVD. Using these lifetime models, benefits and bleeding risk can be weighed for each individual patient, which could facilitate treatment decisions in clinical practice.

Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in patients with stable coronary artery disease: an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and is a consequence of acute thrombotic events involving activation of platelets and coagulation proteins. Factor Xa inhibitors and aspirin each reduce thrombotic events but have not yet been tested in combination or against each other in patients with stable coronary artery disease. METHODS: In this multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, outpatient trial, patients with stable coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease were recruited at 602 hospitals, clinics, or community centres in 33 countries. This paper reports on patients with coronary artery disease. Eligible patients with coronary artery disease had to have had a myocardial infarction in the past 20 years, multi-vessel coronary artery disease, history of stable or unstable angina, previous multi-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention, or previous multi-vessel coronary artery bypass graft surgery. After a 30-day run in period, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive rivaroxaban (2·5 mg orally twice a day) plus aspirin (100 mg once a day), rivaroxaban alone (5 mg orally twice a day), or aspirin alone (100 mg orally once a day). Randomisation was computer generated. Each treatment group was double dummy, and the patients, investigators, and central study staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome of the COMPASS trial was the occurrence of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01776424, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between March 12, 2013, and May 10, 2016, 27 395 patients were enrolled to the COMPASS trial, of whom 24 824 patients had stable coronary artery disease from 558 centres. The combination of rivaroxaban plus aspirin reduced the primary outcome more than aspirin alone (347 [4%] of 8313 vs 460 [6%] of 8261; hazard ratio [HR] 0·74, 95% CI 0·65-0·86, p<0·0001). By comparison, treatment with rivaroxaban alone did not significantly improve the primary outcome when compared with treatment with aspirin alone (411 [5%] of 8250 vs 460 [6%] of 8261; HR 0·89, 95% CI 0·78-1·02, p=0·094). Combined rivaroxaban plus aspirin treatment resulted in more major bleeds than treatment with aspirin alone (263 [3%] of 8313 vs 158 [2%] of 8261; HR 1·66, 95% CI 1·37-2·03, p<0·0001), and similarly, more bleeds were seen in the rivaroxaban alone group than in the aspirin alone group (236 [3%] of 8250 vs 158 [2%] of 8261; HR 1·51, 95% CI 1·23-1·84, p<0·0001). The most common site of major bleeding was gastrointestinal, occurring in 130 [2%] patients who received combined rivaroxaban plus aspirin, in 84 [1%] patients who received rivaroxaban alone, and in 61 [1%] patients who received aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban plus aspirin reduced mortality when compared with aspirin alone (262 [3%] of 8313 vs 339 [4%] of 8261; HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·65-0·90, p=0·0012). INTERPRETATION: In patients with stable coronary artery disease, addition of rivaroxaban to aspirin lowered major vascular events, but increased major bleeding. There was no significant increase in intracranial bleeding or other critical organ bleeding. There was also a significant net benefit in favour of rivaroxaban plus aspirin and deaths were reduced by 23%. Thus, addition of rivaroxaban to aspirin has the potential to substantially reduce morbidity and mortality from coronary artery disease worldwide. FUNDING: Bayer AG.

External applicability of the COMPASS trial: an analysis of the reduction of atherothrombosis for continued health (REACH) registry.

Aims: The aims of the present study were to describe the proportion of patients eligible for the COMPASS trial within the Reduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health (REACH) registry, the reasons for ineligibility, and to put in perspective the characteristics and outcomes of trial-eligible patients from the REACH registry compared with those of patients enrolled in the reference aspirin arm of the COMPASS trial. Methods and results: The COMPASS selection and exclusion criteria were applied to REACH patients with either coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). We used the COMPASS primary composite outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke. In REACH, 31 873 patients had CAD or PAD and detailed information allowing evaluation of eligibility. Among these, 9518 (29.9%) patients had exclusion criteria and an additional 5480 patients (17.2%) did not fulfil the inclusion criteria and thus were not eligible. The 'COMPASS-Eligible' population therefore comprised 52.9% of the evaluable REACH patients (n = 16 875). The main reasons for exclusion were high-bleeding risk (51.8%), anticoagulant use (44.8%), requirement for dual antiplatelet therapy within 1 year of an ACS or PCI with stent, (25.9%), history of ischaemic stroke <1 year (12.4%), and severe renal failure (2.2%). Eligibility was highest among patients with PAD alone (68.4%). COMPASS-Eligible patients from REACH experienced higher annualized primary outcome event rates than patients actually enrolled in the reference aspirin arm of COMPASS (4.2% vs. 2.9% per year, P < 0.001). Conclusion: COMPASS-Eligible patients represent a substantial fraction of stable CAD/PAD patients encountered in routine clinical practice in the large international REACH registry suggesting good external applicability. COMPASS-Eligible patients experienced a higher rate of the primary outcome compared with COMPASS participants in the aspirin alone treatment arm.

n-3 fatty acids and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with dysglycemia.

BACKGROUND: The use of n-3 fatty acids may prevent cardiovascular events in patients with recent myocardial infarction or heart failure. Their effects in patients with (or at risk for) type 2 diabetes mellitus are unknown. METHODS: In this double-blind study with a 2-by-2 factorial design, we randomly assigned 12,536 patients who were at high risk for cardiovascular events and had impaired fasting glucose, impaired glucose tolerance, or diabetes to receive a 1-g capsule containing at least 900 mg (90% or more) of ethyl esters of n-3 fatty acids or placebo daily and to receive either insulin glargine or standard care. The primary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes. The results of the comparison between n-3 fatty acids and placebo are reported here. RESULTS: During a median follow up of 6.2 years, the incidence of the primary outcome was not significantly decreased among patients receiving n-3 fatty acids, as compared with those receiving placebo (574 patients [9.1%] vs. 581 patients [9.3%]; hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.10; P=0.72). The use of n-3 fatty acids also had no significant effect on the rates of major vascular events (1034 patients [16.5%] vs. 1017 patients [16.3%]; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.10; P=0.81), death from any cause (951 [15.1%] vs. 964 [15.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.07; P=0.63), or death from arrhythmia (288 [4.6%] vs. 259 [4.1%]; hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.30; P=0.26). Triglyceride levels were reduced by 14.5 mg per deciliter (0.16 mmol per liter) more among patients receiving n-3 fatty acids than among those receiving placebo (P<0.001), without a significant effect on other lipids. Adverse effects were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Daily supplementation with 1 g of n-3 fatty acids did not reduce the rate of cardiovascular events in patients at high risk for cardiovascular events. (Funded by Sanofi; ORIGIN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00069784.).

Influenza vaccination and major adverse vascular events in high-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the association between influenza vaccination and major adverse vascular events because the association remains uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 31 546 participants were enrolled from 40 countries. Eligibility included age ≥55 years and known vascular disease. The primary outcome was a composite of death resulting from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke during 4 influenza seasons (2003-2007). Influenza vaccination was associated with a lower risk of the outcome during 3 influenza seasons (defined using World Health Organization FluNet reports): 2004 to 2005 (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.77), 2005 to 2006 (adjusted OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53-0.91), and 2006 to 2007 (adjusted OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42-0.65), the same years that circulating influenza matched the vaccine antigen. In 2003 to 2004, there was an incomplete match between circulating influenza and the vaccine antigen, and there was no association between influenza vaccination and the outcome (adjusted OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.73-1.27). However, tests of potential biases in the analyses revealed associations between influenza vaccination and outcome during noninfluenza seasons except 2003 to 2004. The summary ORs in the influenza season (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.58-0.74]) and noninfluenza season (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.76) were almost identical. The reduction in risk of noncardiovascular death associated with the influenza vaccine ranged from 73% to 79%. CONCLUSION: Although initial analyses suggest that influenza vaccination was associated with reduced risk of major adverse vascular events during influenza seasons when the influenza vaccine matched the circulating virus, sensitivity analyses revealed that risk of bias remained. A randomized trial is needed to definitively address this question.

Low-dose rivaroxaban and aspirin among patients with peripheral artery disease: a meta-analysis of the COMPASS and VOYAGER trials.

AIMS: Peripheral artery disease (PAD) patients suffer a high risk of major cardiovascular (CV) events, with athero-thrombo-embolism as the underlying pathophysiologic mechanism. Recently, two large randomized clinical trials evaluated the efficacy and safety of low-dose rivaroxaban twice daily plus aspirin in stable PAD outpatients and those immediately after peripheral revascularization. We sought to determine if the effects of low-dose rivaroxaban and aspirin compared to aspirin alone are consistent across this broad spectrum of PAD patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis of the COMPASS and VOYAGER randomized trials among 11 560 PAD patients (4996 from COMPASS and 6564 from VOYAGER) in the primary analysis and 9332 (2768 from COMPASS and 6564 from VOYAGER) with lower extremity (LE)-PAD in the secondary analysis. The hazard ratio (HR) for the composite of CV death, myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, acute limb ischaemia, or major vascular amputation was 0.79 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.65-0.95) comparing low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin to aspirin alone. While the risk of major bleeding was increased with low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin compared to aspirin alone [HR: 1.51 (95% CI: 1.22-1.87)], there was no significant increase in severe bleeding [HR: 1.18 (95% CI: 0.79-1.76)]. Similar effects were observed in the subset with symptomatic LE-PAD. CONCLUSIONS: Among PAD patients, low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin is superior to aspirin alone in reducing CV and limb outcomes including acute limb ischaemia and major vascular amputation. This reduction is offset by a relative increase in major bleeding, but not by an excess of fatal or critical organ bleeding. The consistency of findings of these trials supports the use of combination low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin in PAD patients across a broad spectrum of disease.

Telmisartan, ramipril, or both in patients at high risk for vascular events.

BACKGROUND: In patients who have vascular disease or high-risk diabetes without heart failure, angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduce mortality and morbidity from cardiovascular causes, but the role of angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in such patients is unknown. We compared the ACE inhibitor ramipril, the ARB telmisartan, and the combination of the two drugs in patients with vascular disease or high-risk diabetes. METHODS: After a 3-week, single-blind run-in period, patients underwent double-blind randomization, with 8576 assigned to receive 10 mg of ramipril per day, 8542 assigned to receive 80 mg of telmisartan per day, and 8502 assigned to receive both drugs (combination therapy). The primary composite outcome was death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure. RESULTS: Mean blood pressure was lower in both the telmisartan group (a 0.9/0.6 mm Hg greater reduction) and the combination-therapy group (a 2.4/1.4 mm Hg greater reduction) than in the ramipril group. At a median follow-up of 56 months, the primary outcome had occurred in 1412 patients in the ramipril group (16.5%), as compared with 1423 patients in the telmisartan group (16.7%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94 to 1.09). As compared with the ramipril group, the telmisartan group had lower rates of cough (1.1% vs. 4.2%, P<0.001) and angioedema (0.1% vs. 0.3%, P=0.01) and a higher rate of hypotensive symptoms (2.6% vs. 1.7%, P<0.001); the rate of syncope was the same in the two groups (0.2%). In the combination-therapy group, the primary outcome occurred in 1386 patients (16.3%; relative risk, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.07); as compared with the ramipril group, there was an increased risk of hypotensive symptoms (4.8% vs. 1.7%, P<0.001), syncope (0.3% vs. 0.2%, P=0.03), and renal dysfunction (13.5% vs. 10.2%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Telmisartan was equivalent to ramipril in patients with vascular disease or high-risk diabetes and was associated with less angioedema. The combination of the two drugs was associated with more adverse events without an increase in benefit. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00153101 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Rivaroxaban and Aspirin in Patients With Symptomatic Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease: A Subanalysis of the COMPASS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Patients with symptomatic lower extremity peripheral artery disease (LE-PAD) experience an increased risk of major vascular events. There is limited information on what clinical features of symptomatic LE-PAD prognosticate major vascular events and whether patients at high risk have a greater absolute benefit from low-dose rivaroxaban and aspirin. Objective: To quantify the risk of major vascular events and investigate the response to treatment with low-dose rivaroxaban and aspirin among patients with symptomatic LE-PAD based on clinical presentation and comorbidities. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a subanalysis of a previously reported subgroup of patients with symptomatic LE-PAD who were enrolled in a large, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies [COMPASS]) in 602 centers in 33 countries from March 2013 to January 2020. Data analysis was completed from May 2016 to June 2020. Interventions: A combination of low-dose rivaroxaban and aspirin compared with aspirin alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: Thirty-month incidence risk of myocardial infarction, stroke and cardiovascular death (MACE), major adverse limb events (MALE) including major vascular amputation, and bleeding. Results: The COMPASS trial enrolled 4129 patients with symptomatic LE-PAD (mean [SD] age, 66.8 [8.8] years; 2932 men [71.0%]). The 30-month Kaplan-Meier incidence risk of MACE or MALE, including major amputation, was 22.6% in those with prior amputation (this outcome was observed in 54 patients), 17.6% (n = 15) in those with Fontaine III or IV symptoms, and 11.8% (n = 142) in those with previous peripheral artery revascularization, classifying these features as high-risk limb presentations. The 30-month incidence risk of MACE or MALE, including major amputation, was 14.1% (n = 118) in those with kidney dysfunction, 13.5% (n = 67) in those with heart failure, 13.4% (n = 199) in those with diabetes, and 12.8% (n = 222) in those with polyvascular disease, classifying these features as high-risk comorbidities. Among patients with either high-risk limb presentations or high-risk comorbidities, treatment with rivaroxaban and aspirin compared with aspirin alone was associated with an estimated 4.2% (95% CI, 1.9%-6.2%) absolute risk reduction for MACE or MALE, including major amputation, at 30 months. Although the estimated absolute risk increase of major bleeding was higher with rivaroxaban and aspirin in combination than aspirin alone (2.0% [95% CI, 0.5%-3.9%]) for patients with either high-risk limb presentation or high-risk comorbidity, the estimated absolute risk increase of fatal or critical organ bleeding was low in this high-risk group (0.4% [95% CI, 0.2%-1.8%]), such that the net clinical benefit was estimated to be 3.2% (95% CI, 0.6%-5.3%). Conclusions and Relevance: Patients with LE-PAD with high-risk limb presentations or high-risk comorbidities had a high incidence of major vascular events. For these patients, treatment with rivaroxaban and aspirin in combination compared with aspirin alone led to a large absolute reduction in vascular risk.

Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin in Obese and Overweight Patients With Vascular Disease in the COMPASS Trial.

BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants are administered in fixed doses irrespective of body weight, but guidelines recommend against their use in patients with extremes of body weight. OBJECTIVES: This study determined the effects of dual-pathway inhibition antithrombotic regimen (rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg/day) compared with aspirin Halone across a range of patient body mass indexes (BMIs) and body weights. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of the COMPASS (Cardiovascular OutcoMes for People using Anticoagulation StrategieS) trial, which included patients with chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease. Efficacy and safety outcomes were studied in relation to BMI: (normal 18.5 ≤BMI <25 kg/m2, overweight 25 ≤BMI <30 kg/m2, obese ≥30 kg/m2) and body weight (≤70 kg, 70 < weight ≤90 kg, and >90 kg; as well as ≤120 kg vs. >120 kg). RESULTS: Among 27,395 randomized patients, 6,459 (24%) had normal BMI, 12,047 (44%) were overweight, and 8,701 (32%) were obese. The combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin compared with aspirin produced a consistent reduction in the primary outcome of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction, irrespective of BMI or body weight. For 18.5 ≤BMI <25 kg/m2: 3.5% vs. 5.0%; hazard ratio (HR): 0.73 (95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.58 to 0.90); 25 ≤ BMI <30 kg/m2: 4.3% vs. 5.1%; HR: 0.80 (95% CrI: 0.66 to 0.96); BMI ≥30 kg/m2: 4.2% vs. 6.1%; HR: 0.71 (95% CrI: 0.57 to 0.86). For body weight ≤70 kg: 4.1% vs. 5.3%; HR: 0.75 (95% CrI: 0.62 to 0.91); 70 < weight ≤90 kg: 4.1% vs. 5.3%; HR: 0.76 (95% CrI: 0.65 to 0.89); >90 kg: 4.2% vs. 5.7%; HR: 0.74 (95% CrI: 0.61 to 0.90). Effects on bleeding, mortality, and net clinical benefit were consistent irrespective of BMI or bodyweight. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of dual-pathway antithrombotic therapy are consistent irrespective of BMI or body weight, suggesting no need for dose adjustments in the ranges of weights and BMI of patients enrolled in the COMPASS trial. Further studies need to address this problem in relation to greater extremes of body weight. (Rivaroxaban for the Prevention of Major Cardiovascular Events in Coronary or Peripheral Artery Disease [COMPASS]; NCT01776424).

Cardiovascular consequences of discontinuing low-dose rivaroxaban in people with chronic coronary or peripheral artery disease.

OBJECTIVE: In patients with chronic coronary or peripheral artery disease enrolled in the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies trial, randomised antithrombotic treatments were stopped after a median follow-up of 23 months because of benefits of the combination of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg two times per day and aspirin 100 mg once daily compared with aspirin 100 mg once daily. We assessed the effect of switching to non-study aspirin at the time of early stopping. METHODS: Incident composite of myocardial infarction, stroke or cardiovascular death was estimated per 100 person-years (py) during randomised treatment (n=18 278) and after study treatment discontinuation to non-study aspirin (n=14 068). RESULTS: During randomised treatment, the combination compared with aspirin reduced the composite (2.2 vs 2.9/100 py, HR: 0.76, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86), stroke (0.5 vs 0.8/100 py, HR: 0.58, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.76) and cardiovascular death (0.9 vs 1.2/100 py, HR: 0.78, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.96). During 1.02 years after early stopping, participants originally randomised to the combination compared with those randomised to aspirin had similar rates of the composite (2.1 vs 2.0/100 py, HR: 1.08, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.39) and cardiovascular death (1.0 vs 0.8/100 py, HR: 1.26, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.86) but higher stroke rate (0.7 vs 0.4/100 py, HR: 1.74, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.87) including a significant increase in ischaemic stroke during the first 6 months after switching to non-study aspirin. CONCLUSION: Discontinuing study rivaroxaban and aspirin to non-study aspirin was associated with the loss of cardiovascular benefits and a stroke excess. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01776424.