Outcomes in the ISCHEMIA Trial Based on Coronary Artery Disease and Ischemia Severity

BACKGROUND: The ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) postulated that patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and moderate or severe ischemia would benefit from revascularization. We investigated the relationship between severity of CAD and ischemia and trial outcomes, overall and by management strategy. METHODS: In total, 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia were randomized to an initial invasive or conservative management strategy. Blinded, core laboratory­interpreted coronary computed tomographic angiography was used to assess anatomic eligibility for randomization. Extent and severity of CAD were classified with the modified Duke Prognostic Index (n=2475, 48%). Ischemia severity was interpreted by independent core laboratories (nuclear, echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging, exercise tolerance testing, n=5105, 99%). We compared 4-year event rates across subgroups defined by severity of ischemia and CAD. The primary end point for this analysis was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points were myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular death or MI, and the trial primary end point (cardiovascular death, MI, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest). RESULTS: Relative to mild/no ischemia, neither moderate ischemia nor severe ischemia was associated with increased mortality (moderate ischemia hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.61­1.30]; severe ischemia HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.57­1.21]; P=0.33). Nonfatal MI rates increased with worsening ischemia severity (HR for moderate ischemia, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.86­1.69] versus mild/no ischemia; HR for severe ischemia, 1.37 [95% CI, 0.98­1.91]; P=0.04 for trend, P=NS after adjustment for CAD). Increasing CAD severity was associated with death (HR, 2.72 [95% CI, 1.06­6.98]) and MI (HR, 3.78 [95% CI, 1.63­8.78]) for the most versus least severe CAD subgroup. Ischemia severity did not identify a subgroup with treatment benefit on mortality, MI, the trial primary end point, or cardiovascular death or MI. In the most severe CAD subgroup (n=659), the 4-year rate of cardiovascular death or MI was lower in the invasive strategy group (difference, 6.3% [95% CI, 0.2%­12.4%]), but 4-year all-cause mortality was similar. CONCLUSIONS: Ischemia severity was not associated with increased risk after adjustment for CAD severity. More severe CAD was associated with increased risk. Invasive management did not lower all-cause mortality at 4 years in any ischemia or CAD subgroup.

Lowering cholesterol, blood pressure, or both to prevent cardiovascular events: results of 8. 7 years of follow-up of Heart Outcomes Evaluation Prevention (HOPE)-3 study participants

AIMS Rosuvastatin (10 mg per day) compared with placebo reduced major adverse cardiovascular (CV) events by 24% in 12 705 participants at intermediate CV risk after 5.6 years. There was no benefit of blood pressure (BP) lowering treatment in the overall group, but a reduction in events in the third of participants with elevated systolic BP. After cessation of all the trial medications, we examined whether the benefits observed during the active treatment phase were sustained, enhanced, or attenuated. METHODS AND RESULTS After the randomized treatment period (5.6 years), participants were invited to participate in 3.1 further years of observation (total 8.7 years). The first co-primary outcome for the entire length of follow-up was the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or CV death [major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE)-1], and the second was MACE-1 plus resuscitated cardiac arrest, heart failure, or coronary revascularization (MACE-2). In total, 9326 (78%) of 11 994 surviving Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE)-3 subjects consented to participate in extended follow-up. During 3.1 years of post-trial observation (total follow-up of 8.7 years), participants originally randomized to rosuvastatin compared with placebo had a 20% additional reduction in MACE-1 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64­0.99] and a 17% additional reduction in MACE-2 (95% CI 0.68­1.01). Therefore, over the 8.7 years of follow-up, there was a 21% reduction in MACE-1 (95% CI 0.69­0.90, P = 0.005) and 21% reduction in MACE-2 (95% CI 0.69­0.89, P = 0.002). There was no benefit of BP lowering in the overall study either during the active or post-trial observation period, however, a 24% reduction in MACE-1 was observed over 8.7 years. CONCLUSION The CV benefits of rosuvastatin, and BP lowering in those with elevated systolic BP, compared with placebo continue to accrue for at least 3 years after cessation of randomized treatment in individuals without cardiovascular disease indicating a legacy effect.

Similar cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes and established or high risk for coronary vascular disease treated with dulaglutide with and without baseline metformin / Desfechos cardiovasculares semelhantes em pacientes com diabetes e risco estabelecido ou alto para doença vascular coronariana tratada com dulaglutida com e sem linha de base metformina

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 0.81­1.05) vs. 0.78 (CI 0.61­0.99); 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.

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 x 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 (5mg 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. (AU)

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. (AU)

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 multicenter, randomized, 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 5·1­5·9) 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 0·77­0·93; p=0·0004). The clearest effect was for new macroalbuminuria (HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·68­0·87; p<0·0001), with HRs of 0·89 (0·78­1·01; p=0·066) for sustained decline in eGFR of 30% or more and 0·75 (0·39­1·44; p=0·39) for chronic renal replacement therapy. (AU)

Efeitos da pressão arterial e redução de lipídios na cognição: resultados do estudo HOPE-3 / Effects of blood pressure and lipid lowering on cognition: Results from the HOPE-3 study

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether long-term treatment with candesartan/hydrochlorothiazide, rosuvastatin, or their combination can slow cognitive decline in older people at intermediate cardiovascular risk. METHODS: The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation-3 (HOPE-3) study was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial using a 2 × 2 factorial design. Participants without known cardiovascular disease or need for treatment were randomized to candesartan (16 mg) plus hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 mg) or placebo and to rosuvastatin (10 mg) or placebo. Participants who were ≥70 years of age completed the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST), the modified Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and the Trail Making Test Part B at baseline and study end. RESULTS: Cognitive assessments were completed by 2,361 participants from 228 centers in 21 countries. Compared with placebo, candesartan/hydrochlorothiazide reduced systolic blood pressure by 6.0 mm Hg, and rosuvastatin reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 24.8 mg/dL. Participants were followed up for 5.7 years (median), and 1,626 completed both baseline and study-end assessments. Mean participant age was 74 years (SD ±3.5 years); 59% were women; 45% had hypertension; and 24% had ≥12 years of education. The mean difference in change in DSST scores was -0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI] -2.25 to 0.42) for candesartan/hydrochlorothiazide compared with placebo, -0.54 (95% CI -1.88 to 0.80) for rosuvastatin compared with placebo, and -1.43 (95% CI -3.37 to 0.50) for combination therapy vs double placebo. No significant differences were found for other measures. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term blood pressure lowering with candesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide, rosuvastatin, or their combination did not significantly affect cognitive decline in older people.(AU)

Optimal medical therapy use and long-term outcomes in cabg-eligible heart failure patients: insights from the stich trial

BACKGROUND: Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) reduces mortality in Heart Failure (HF) and coronary artery disease (CAD) patients (pts). There is a paucity of data on the utilization of optimal medical therapy (OMT) in HF and CAD pts after revascularization and the impact on long term outcomes. We evaluate the impact of baseline use of OMT versus Non-OMT on long-term clinical outcomes in pts receiving CABG compared to patients with medical treatment alone (MED). METHODS: The STICH trial randomized 1212 pts with CAD and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% to CABG + MED versus MED alone. OMT was defined as a combination of 4 drugs: ACEI/ARB, BB, statin, and at least one antiplatelet drug at baseline, with a median follow up over 9.8 years. RESULTS: At baseline, 58.7% of the pts were on OMT (CABG 56.1%; MED 61.5%), remaining stable or increasing similarly for both groups during follow up, for example, at 1 year, CABG 73.2% and Med 74.3%. Age, gender, diabetes were similar. OMT pts had less atrial fibrillation, lower angina score class, less advance heart failure class and better renal function. There were no differences in LVEF and end systolic and diastolic volume index. OMT use at baseline was associated with a significantly lower all-cause mortality compared to Non- OMT pts (58.8% vs 67.6%, log-rank P<0.001), lower cardiovascular mortality (40.3% vs 51.4%, log-rank P<0.001) and lower HF death, 11.2% vs 15.6%, log-rank P<0.001). Sudden death was not different (21.5% vs 23.4%, P=0.058). In a multivariable Cox model, OMT was associated with a lower All-cause mortality (HR 0.78, 95%CI 0.66-0.91 P=0.001). The effect of OMT was similar for both CABG and MED only pts for these outcomes (p=0.189 for interaction). Hospitalization for HF was not reduced with OMT. CONCLUSION: OMT is associated with lower all-cause mortality in CABG eligible HF pts, regardless of the lower baseline risk among OMT pts and the performance of CABG. OMT should be strongly considered for all pts with ischemic cardiomyopathy regardless of whether CABG is performed. (AU)

Effects of Lipid-Lowering and Antihypertensive Treatments in Addition to Healthy Lifestyles in Primary Prevention: An Analysis of the HOPE 3 Trial

BACKGROUND: It is not clear whether the effects of lipid-lowering or antihypertensive medications are influenced by adherence to healthy lifestyle factors. We assessed the effects of both drug interventions in subgroups by the number of healthy lifestyle factors in participants in the HOPE-3 (Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation) trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this primary prevention trial, 4 healthy lifestyle factors (nonsmoking status, physical activity, optimal body weight, and healthy diet) were recorded in 12 521 participants who were at intermediate risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and were randomized to rosuvastatin, candesartan/hydrochlorothiazide, their combination, or matched placebos. Median follow-up was 5.6 years. The outcome was a composite of CVD events. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox regression models. Participants with ≥2 healthy lifestyle factors had a lower rate of CVD compared with those with fewer factors (HR: 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73­1.00). Rosuvastatin reduced CVD events in participants with ≥2 healthy lifestyle factors (HR: 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62­0.90) and in participants with. < 2 factors: HR: 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43­0.88). Candesartan/ hydrochlorothiazide tends to reduce CVD only in participants with <2 healthy lifestyle factors (HR: 0.78; 95% CI, 0.61­1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Healthy lifestyles are associated with lower CVD. Rosuvastatin alone and combined with candesartan/ hydrochlorothiazide is beneficial regardless of healthy lifestyle status; however, the benefit of antihypertensive treatment appears to be limited to patients with less healthy lifestyles.

Rationale, design and baseline characteristics of participants in the cardiovascular outcomes for people using anticoagulation strategies (COMPASS) trial

BACKGROUND: Long-term aspirin prevents vascular events but is only modestly effective. Rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin might be more effective than aspirin alone for vascular prevention in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). Rivaroxaban as well as aspirin increase upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and this might be prevented by proton pump inhibitor therapy. METHODS: Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) is a double-blind superiority trial comparing rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily combined with aspirin 100 mg once daily or rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily vs aspirin 100 mg once daily for prevention of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death in patients with stable CAD or PAD. Patients not taking a proton pump inhibitor were also randomized, using a partial factorial design, to pantoprazole 40 mg once daily or placebo. The trial was designed to have at least 90% power to detect a 20% reduction in each of the rivaroxaban treatment arms compared with aspirin and to detect a 50% reduction in upper GI complications with pantoprazole compared with placebo...

Amiodarone, Anticoagulation, and Clinical Events in Patients With Atrial FibrillationInsights From the ARISTOTLE Trial

Amiodarone is an effective medication in preventing atrial fibrillation (AF), but it interferes with the metabolism of warfarin.Objectives This study sought to examine the association of major thrombotic clinical events and bleeding with the use of amiodarone in the ARISTOTLE (Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation) trial.Methods Baseline characteristics of patients who received amiodarone at randomization were compared with those who did not receive amiodarone. The interaction between randomized treatment and amiodarone was tested using a Cox model, with main effects for randomized treatment and amiodarone and their interaction. Matching on the basis of a propensity score was used to compare patients who received and who did not receive amiodarone at the time of randomization.Results In ARISTOTLE, 2,051 (11.4%) patients received amiodarone at randomization. Patients on warfarin and amiodarone had time in the therapeutic range that was lower than patients not on amiodarone (56.5% vs. 63.0%; p < 0.0001). More amiodarone-treated patients had a stroke or a systemic embolism (1.58%/year vs. 1.19%/year; adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03 to 2.10; p = 0.0322). Overall mortality and major bleeding rates were elevated, but were not significantly different in amiodarone-treated patients and patients not on amiodarone. When comparing apixaban with warfarin, patients who received amiodarone had a stroke or a systemic embolism rate of 1.24%/year versus 1.85%/year (HR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.40 to 1.15), death of 4.15%/year versus 5.65%/year (HR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.98)...