When cardiovascular medicines should be discontinued.

An integral component of the practice of medicine is focused on the initiation of medications, based on clinical practice guidelines and underlying trial evidence, which usually test the addition of novel medications intended for life-long use in short-term clinical trials. Much less attention is given to the question of medication discontinuation, especially after a lengthy period of treatment, during which patients age gets older and diseases may either progress or new diseases may emerge. Given the paucity of data, clinical practice guidelines offer little to no guidance on when and how to deprescribe cardiovascular medications. Such decisions are often left to the discretion of clinicians, who, together with their patients, express concern of potential adverse effects of medication discontinuation. Even in the absence of adverse effects, the continuation of medications without any proven effect may cause harm due to drug-drug interactions, the emergence of polypharmacy, and additional preventable spending to already strained health systems. Herein, several cardiovascular medications or medication classes are discussed that in the opinion of this author group should generally be discontinued, either for the prevention of potential harm, for a lack of benefit, or for the availability of better alternatives.

Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibition in Patients With STEMI vs NSTEMI.

BACKGROUND: Patients who sustain an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), including ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), remain at high risk for heart failure (HF), coronary events, and death. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors have been shown to significantly decrease the risk for cardiovascular events in both STEMI and NSTEMI patients. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to determine whether angiotensin-receptor blockade and neprilysin inhibition with sacubitril/valsartan, compared with ramipril, has impact on reducing cardiovascular events according to the type of AMI. METHODS: The PARADISE-MI (Prospective ARNI versus ACE inhibitor trial to DetermIne Superiority in reducing heart failure Events after Myocardial Infarction) trial enrolled patients with AMI complicated by left ventricular dysfunction and/or pulmonary congestion and at least 1 risk-enhancing factor. Patients were randomized to either sacubitril/valsartan or ramipril. The primary endpoint was death from cardiovascular causes or incident HF. In this prespecified analysis, we stratified patients according to AMI type. RESULTS: Of 5,661 enrolled patients, 4,291 (75.8%) had STEMI. These patients were younger and had fewer comorbidities and cardiovascular risk factors than NSTEMI patients. After adjustment for potential confounders, the risk for the primary outcome was marginally higher in NSTEMI vs STEMI patients (adjusted HR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.00-1.41), with borderline statistical significance (P = 0.05). The primary composite outcome occurred at similar rates in patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan vs ramipril in STEMI (10% vs 12%; HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.73-1.04; P = 0.13) and NSTEMI patients (17% vs 17%; HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.75-1.25; P = 0.80; P interaction = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with ramipril, sacubitril/valsartan did not significantly decrease the risk for cardiovascular death and HF in patients with AMI complicated by left ventricular dysfunction, irrespective of the type of AMI. (Prospective ARNI vs ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI; NCT02924727).

Evaluating registry-based trial economics: Results from the STRESS clinical trial.

Background: Registry-based trials have the potential to reduce randomized clinical trial (RCT) costs. However, observed cost differences also may be achieved through pragmatic trial designs. A systematic comparison of trial costs across different designs has not been previously performed. Methods: We conducted a study to compare the current Steroids to Reduce Systemic inflammation after infant heart surgery (STRESS) registry-based RCT vs. two established designs: pragmatic RCT and explanatory RCT. The primary outcome was total RCT design costs. Secondary outcomes included: RCT duration and personnel hours. Costs were estimated using the Duke Clinical Research Institute's pricing model. Results: The Registry-Based RCT estimated duration was 31.9 weeks greater than the other designs (259.5 vs. 227.6 weeks). This delay was caused by the Registry-Based design's periodic data harvesting that delayed site closing and statistical reporting. Total personnel hours were greatest for the Explanatory design followed by the Pragmatic design and the Registry-Based design (52,488 vs 29,763 vs. 24,480 h, respectively). Total costs were greatest for the Explanatory design followed by the Pragmatic design and the Registry-Based design ($10,140,263 vs. $4,164,863 vs. $3,268,504, respectively). Thus, Registry-Based total costs were 32 % of the Explanatory and 78 % of the Pragmatic design. Conclusion: Total costs for the STRESS RCT with a registry-based design were less than those for a pragmatic design and much less than an explanatory design. Cost savings reflect design elements and leveraging of registry resources to improve cost efficiency, but delays to trial completion should be considered.

Uso de agentes antiarrítmicos y resultados clínicos en pacientes añosos con fibrilación auricular y enfermedad coronaria concomitante

Objetivo: la fibrilación auricular (FA) y la enfermedad coronaria (EC) son comunes en los pacientes añosos. En este estudio nos propusimos describir el uso de agentes antiarrítmicos (AAA) y los resultados clínicos en estos pacientes. Métodos y resultados: se analizó el tratamiento con AAA y los resultados observados en 1.738 pacientes mayores (edad ³65) con FA y EC registrados en el Banco de Datos para Enfermedad Cardiovascular de Duke. Los resultados primarios fueron mortalidad y rehospitalización al año y a los cinco años. En términos generales, 35% de los pacientes recibían un AAA al inicio, 43% eran mujeres y 85% eran blancos. Fueron frecuentes los antecedentes de infarto de miocardio (IM, 31%) e insuficiencia cardíaca (41%). La amiodarona era el AAA más frecuente (21%), seguida de agentes de Clase III pura (sotalol 6,3%, dofetilida 2,2%). La persistencia de los AAA fue baja (35% al año). Luego del ajuste, el uso de AAA al inicio no se asoció con la mortalidad al año (cociente de riesgo ajustado (HR) 1,23, intervalo de confianza (IC) 95%: 0,94-1,60) o con la mortalidad cardiovascular (HR ajustado 1,27, IC 95% 0,90-1,80). Sin embargo, el uso de AAA sí se asoció con un aumento de la rehospitalización por todas las causas (HR ajustado 1,20, IC 95%: 1,03-1,39) y rehospitalización cardiovascular (HR ajustado 1,20, IC 95% 1,01-1,43) al año. Esta asociación no se mantiene a los cinco años; sin embargo, estos pacientes tuvieron un elevado riesgo de muerte (55% para los >75 años y que recibían AAA) y rehospitalización (87% para aquellos >75 años que recibían AAA) a los cinco años. Conclusiones: en pacientes añosos que padecen FA y EC, la terapia antiarrítmica se acompañó de aumento de la rehospitalización al año. En términos generales, estos pacientes presentan un alto riesgo de internación y muerte a largo plazo. Se necesitan desarrollar terapias más seguras, mejor toleradas y que brinden un control de los síntomas más eficaz en esta población de alto riesgo.