Efficacy and Safety of Non-Vitamin-K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin Across the Spectrum of Body Mass Index and Body Weight: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of 4 Randomized Clinical Trials of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of non-vitamin-K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) across the spectrum of body mass index (BMI) and body weight (BW) remain uncertain. METHODS: We analyzed data from COMBINE AF (A Collaboration Between Multiple Institutions to Better Investigate Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Use in Atrial Fibrillation), which pooled patient-level data from the 4 pivotal randomized trials of NOAC versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were stroke or systemic embolic events (stroke/SEE) and major bleeding, respectively; secondary outcomes were ischemic stroke/SEE, intracranial hemorrhage, death, and the net clinical outcome (stroke/SEE, major bleeding, or death). Each outcome was examined across BMI and BW. Because few patients had a BMI <18.5 kg/m2 (n=598), the primary analyses were restricted to those with a BMI ≥18.5 kg/m2. RESULTS: Among 58 464 patients, the median BMI was 28.3 (interquartile range, 25.2-32.2) kg/m2, and the median BW was 81.0 (interquartile range, 70.0-94.3) kg. The event probability of stroke/SEE was lower at a higher BMI irrespective of treatment, whereas the probability of major bleeding was lower at a higher BMI with warfarin but relatively unchanged across BMI with NOACs. NOACs reduced stroke/SEE overall (adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.73-0.88]; P<0.001), with a generally consistent effect across BMI (Ptrend across HRs, 0.48). NOACs also reduced major bleeding overall (HRadj, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.82-0.94]; P<0.001), but with attenuation of the benefit at a higher BMI (trend test across BMI [Ptrend], 0.003). The overall treatment effects of NOACs versus warfarin for secondary outcomes were consistent across BMI, with the exception of the net clinical outcome and death. While these outcomes were overall reduced with NOACs (net clinical outcome, HRadj, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.87-0.95]; P<0.001; death, HRadj, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.86-0.97]; P=0.003), these benefits were attenuated at higher BMI (Ptrend, 0.001 and 0.08, respectively). All findings were qualitatively similar when analyzed across BW. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment effect of NOACs versus warfarin in atrial fibrillation is generally consistent for stroke/SEE across the spectrum of BMI and BW, whereas the reduction in major bleeding is attenuated in those with higher BMI or BW. Death and the net clinical outcome are overall reduced with NOACs over warfarin, although there remain uncertainties for these outcomes at a very high BMI and BW.

Association between COVID-19 convalescent plasma antibody levels and COVID-19 outcomes stratified by clinical status at presentation.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to understand the relationship between COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma (CCP) anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels and clinical outcomes to optimize CCP use. This study aims to evaluate the relationship between recipient baseline clinical status, clinical outcomes, and CCP antibody levels. METHODS: The study analyzed data from the COMPILE study, a meta-analysis of pooled individual patient data from 8 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of CCP vs. control, in adults hospitalized for COVID-19 who were not receiving mechanical ventilation at randomization. SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels, referred to as 'dose' of CCP treatment, were retrospectively measured in donor sera or the administered CCP, semi-quantitatively using the VITROS Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG chemiluminescent immunoassay (Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics) with a signal-to-cutoff ratio (S/Co). The association between CCP dose and outcomes was investigated, treating dose as either continuous or categorized (higher vs. lower vs. control), stratified by recipient oxygen supplementation status at presentation. RESULTS: A total of 1714 participants were included in the study, 1138 control- and 576 CCP-treated patients for whom donor CCP anti-SARS-CoV2 antibody levels were available from the COMPILE study. For participants not receiving oxygen supplementation at baseline, higher-dose CCP (/control) was associated with a reduced risk of ventilation or death at day 14 (OR = 0.19, 95% CrI: [0.02, 1.70], posterior probability Pr(OR < 1) = 0.93) and day 28 mortality (OR = 0.27 [0.02, 2.53], Pr(OR < 1) = 0.87), compared to lower-dose CCP (/control) (ventilation or death at day 14 OR = 0.79 [0.07, 6.87], Pr(OR < 1) = 0.58; and day 28 mortality OR = 1.11 [0.10, 10.49], Pr(OR < 1) = 0.46), exhibiting a consistently positive CCP dose effect on clinical outcomes. For participants receiving oxygen at baseline, the dose-outcome relationship was less clear, although a potential benefit for day 28 mortality was observed with higher-dose CCP (/control) (OR = 0.66 [0.36, 1.13], Pr(OR < 1) = 0.93) compared to lower-dose CCP (/control) (OR = 1.14 [0.73, 1.78], Pr(OR < 1) = 0.28). CONCLUSION: Higher-dose CCP is associated with its effectiveness in patients not initially receiving oxygen supplementation, however, further research is needed to understand the interplay between CCP anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels and clinical outcome in COVID-19 patients initially receiving oxygen supplementation.

Application of the Win Ratio Method in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 Trial Comparing Edoxaban With Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular trials often use a composite end point and a time-to-first event model. We sought to compare edoxaban versus warfarin using the win ratio, which offers data complementary to time-to-first event analysis, emphasizing the most severe clinical events. METHODS: ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 (Effective Anticoagulation With Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48) was a double-blind, randomized trial in which patients with atrial fibrillation were assigned 1:1:1 to a higher dose edoxaban regimen (60/30 mg daily), a lower dose edoxaban regimen (30/15 mg daily), or warfarin. In an exploratory analysis, we analyzed the trial outcomes using an unmatched win ratio approach. The win ratio for each edoxaban regimen was the total number of edoxaban wins divided by the number of warfarin wins for the following ranked clinical outcomes: 1: death; 2: hemorrhagic stroke; 3: ischemic stroke/systemic embolic event/epidural or subdural bleeding; 4: noncerebral International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis major bleeding; and 5: cardiovascular hospitalization. RESULTS: 21 105 patients were randomized to higher dose edoxaban regimen (N=7035), lower dose edoxaban regimen (N=7034), or warfarin (N=7046), yielding >49 million pairs for each treatment comparison. The median age was 72 years, 38% were women, and 59% had prior vitamin K antagonist use. The win ratio was 1.11 (95% CI, 1.05-1.18) for higher dose edoxaban regimen versus warfarin and 1.11 (95% CI, 1.05-1.18) for lower dose edoxaban regimen versus warfarin. The favorable impacts of edoxaban on death (34% of wins) and cardiovascular hospitalization (41% of wins) were the major contributors to the win ratio. Results consistently favored edoxaban in subgroups based on creatine clearance and dose reduction at baseline, with heightened benefit among those without prior vitamin K antagonist use. CONCLUSIONS: In a win ratio analysis of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial, both dose regimens of edoxaban were superior to warfarin for the net clinical outcome incorporating ischemic and bleeding events. As the win ratio emphasizes the most severe clinical events, this analysis supports the superiority of edoxaban over warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00781391.

Dose Reduction of Edoxaban in Patients 80 Years and Older With Atrial Fibrillation: Post Hoc Analysis of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In older patients with atrial fibrillation who take anticoagulants for stroke prevention, bleeding is increased compared with younger patients, thus, clinicians frequently prescribe lower than recommended doses in older patients despite limited randomized data. Objective: To evaluate ischemic and bleeding outcomes in patients 80 years and older with atrial fibrillation receiving edoxaban, 60 mg vs 30 mg, and edoxaban, 30 mg vs warfarin. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial (Effective Anticoagulation With Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48) was a parallel-design, double-blind, global clinical trial that randomized patients with atrial fibrillation to either one of 2 edoxaban dosing regimens or warfarin. This secondary analysis focused on patients 80 years or older without dose-reduction criteria receiving edoxaban, 60 mg vs 30 mg, as well as patients with or without dose-reduction criteria receiving edoxaban, 30 mg, vs warfarin. Study data were analyzed between October 2022 and December 2023. Interventions: Oral edoxaban, 30 mg once daily; edoxaban, 60 mg once daily; or warfarin. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary net clinical outcome of death, stroke or systemic embolism, and major bleeding and each individual component. Results: The current analysis included 2966 patients 80 years and older (mean [SD] age, 83 [2.7] years; 1671 male [56%]). Among 1138 patients 80 years and older without dose-reduction criteria, those receiving edoxaban, 60 mg vs 30 mg, had more major bleeding events (hazard ratio [HR], 1.57; 95% CI, 1.04-2.38; P = .03), particularly gastrointestinal hemorrhage (HR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.29-3.90; P = .004), with no significant difference in efficacy end points. Findings were supported by analyses of endogenous factor Xa inhibition, a marker of anticoagulant effect, which was comparable between younger patients receiving edoxaban, 60 mg, and older patients receiving edoxaban, 30 mg. In 2406 patients 80 years and older with or without dose-reduction criteria, patients receiving edoxaban, 30 mg, vs warfarin had lower rates of the primary net clinical outcome (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.68-0.91; P = .001), major bleeding (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45-0.77; P < .001), and death (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-1.00; P = .046), whereas rates of stroke or systemic embolism were comparable. Conclusions and Relevance: In this post hoc analysis of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 randomized clinical trial, in patients 80 years and older with atrial fibrillation, major bleeding events were lower in patients randomized to receive edoxaban, 30 mg per day, compared with either edoxaban, 60 mg per day (in patients without dose-reduction criteria), or warfarin (irrespective of dose-reduction status), without an offsetting increase in ischemic events. These data support the concept that lower-dose anticoagulants, such as edoxaban, 30 mg, may be considered in older patients with atrial fibrillation even in the absence of dose-reduction criteria. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00781391.

Novel Polygenic Risk Score and Established Clinical Risk Factors for Risk Estimation of Aortic Stenosis.

Importance: Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have proven to be as strong as or stronger than established clinical risk factors for many cardiovascular phenotypes. Whether this is true for aortic stenosis remains unknown. Objective: To develop a novel aortic stenosis PRS and compare its aortic stenosis risk estimation to established clinical risk factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a longitudinal cohort study using data from the Million Veteran Program (MVP; 2011-2020), UK Biobank (2006-2010), and 6 Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) trials, including DECLARE-TIMI 58 (2013-2018), FOURIER (TIMI 59; 2013-2017), PEGASUS-TIMI 54 (2010-2014), SAVOR-TIMI 53 (2010-2013), SOLID-TIMI 52 (2009-2014), and ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 (2008-2013), which were a mix of population-based and randomized clinical trials. Individuals from UK Biobank and the MVP meeting a previously validated case/control definition for aortic stenosis were included. All individuals from TIMI trials were included unless they had a documented preexisting aortic valve replacement. Analysis took place from January 2022 to December 2023. Exposures: PRS for aortic stenosis (developed using data from MVP and validated in UK Biobank) and other previously validated cardiovascular PRSs, defined either as a continuous variable or as low (bottom 20%), intermediate, and high (top 20%), and clinical risk factors. Main Outcomes: Aortic stenosis (defined using International Classification of Diseases or Current Procedural Terminology codes in UK Biobank and MVP or safety event data in the TIMI trials). Results: The median (IQR) age in MVP was 67 (57-73) years, and 135 140 of 147 104 participants (92%) were male. The median (IQR) age in the TIMI trials was 66 (54-78) years, and 45 524 of 59 866 participants (71%) were male. The best aortic stenosis PRS incorporated 5 170 041 single-nucleotide variants and was associated with aortic stenosis in both the MVP testing sample (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.37-1.45 per 1 SD PRS; P = 4.6 × 10-116) and TIMI trials (hazard ratio, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.27-1.62 per 1 SD PRS; P = 3.2 × 10-9). Among genetic and clinical risk factors, the aortic stenosis PRS performed comparably to most risk factors besides age, and within a given age range, the combination of clinical and genetic risk factors was additive, providing a 3- to 4-fold increased gradient of risk of aortic stenosis. However, the addition of the aortic stenosis PRS to a model including clinical risk factors only improved risk discrimination of aortic stenosis by 0.01 to 0.02 (C index in MVP: 0.78 with clinical risk factors, 0.79 with risk factors and aortic stenosis PRS; C index in TIMI: 0.71 with clinical risk factors, 0.73 with risk factors and aortic stenosis PRS). Conclusions: This study developed and validated 1 of the first aortic stenosis PRSs. While aortic stenosis genetic risk was independent from clinical risk factors and performed comparably to all other risk factors besides age, genetic risk resulted in only a small improvement in overall aortic stenosis risk discrimination beyond age and clinical risk factors. This work sets the stage for further development of an aortic stenosis PRS.