Empagliflozin after Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin improves cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure, patients with type 2 diabetes who are at high cardiovascular risk, and patients with chronic kidney disease. The safety and efficacy of empagliflozin in patients who have had acute myocardial infarction are unknown. METHODS: In this event-driven, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients who had been hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction and were at risk for heart failure to receive empagliflozin at a dose of 10 mg daily or placebo in addition to standard care within 14 days after admission. The primary end point was a composite of hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause as assessed in a time-to-first-event analysis. RESULTS: A total of 3260 patients were assigned to receive empagliflozin and 3262 to receive placebo. During a median follow-up of 17.9 months, a first hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause occurred in 267 patients (8.2%) in the empagliflozin group and in 298 patients (9.1%) in the placebo group, with incidence rates of 5.9 and 6.6 events, respectively, per 100 patient-years (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.06; P = 0.21). With respect to the individual components of the primary end point, a first hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 118 patients (3.6%) in the empagliflozin group and in 153 patients (4.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.98), and death from any cause occurred in 169 (5.2%) and 178 (5.5%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.19). Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of empagliflozin and were similar in the two trial groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients at increased risk for heart failure after acute myocardial infarction, treatment with empagliflozin did not lead to a significantly lower risk of a first hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause than placebo. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly; EMPACT-MI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04509674.).

Apolipoprotein A1 Infusions and Cardiovascular Outcomes after Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular events frequently recur after acute myocardial infarction, and low cholesterol efflux - a process mediated by apolipoprotein A1, which is the main protein in high-density lipoprotein - has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. CSL112 is human apolipoprotein A1 derived from plasma that increases cholesterol efflux capacity. Whether infusions of CSL112 can reduce the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events after acute myocardial infarction is unclear. METHODS: We conducted an international, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients with acute myocardial infarction, multivessel coronary artery disease, and additional cardiovascular risk factors. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either four weekly infusions of 6 g of CSL112 or matching placebo, with the first infusion administered within 5 days after the first medical contact for the acute myocardial infarction. The primary end point was a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes from randomization through 90 days of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 18,219 patients were included in the trial (9112 in the CSL112 group and 9107 in the placebo group). There was no significant difference between the groups in the risk of a primary end-point event at 90 days of follow-up (439 patients [4.8%] in the CSL112 group vs. 472 patients [5.2%] in the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.05; P = 0.24), at 180 days of follow-up (622 patients [6.9%] vs. 683 patients [7.6%]; hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.01), or at 365 days of follow-up (885 patients [9.8%] vs. 944 patients [10.5%]; hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.02). The percentage of patients with adverse events was similar in the two groups; a higher number of hypersensitivity events was reported in the CSL112 group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with acute myocardial infarction, multivessel coronary artery disease, and additional cardiovascular risk factors, four weekly infusions of CSL112 did not result in a lower risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes than placebo through 90 days. (Funded by CSL Behring; AEGIS-II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03473223.).

Phase 2 Trial of Baxdrostat for Treatment-Resistant Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Aldosterone synthase controls the synthesis of aldosterone and has been a pharmacologic target for the treatment of hypertension for several decades. Selective inhibition of aldosterone synthase is essential but difficult to achieve because cortisol synthesis is catalyzed by another enzyme that shares 93% sequence similarity with aldosterone synthase. In preclinical and phase 1 studies, baxdrostat had 100:1 selectivity for enzyme inhibition, and baxdrostat at several dose levels reduced plasma aldosterone levels but not cortisol levels. METHODS: In this multicenter, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who had treatment-resistant hypertension, with blood pressure of 130/80 mm Hg or higher, and who were receiving stable doses of at least three antihypertensive agents, including a diuretic, to receive baxdrostat (0.5 mg, 1 mg, or 2 mg) once daily for 12 weeks or placebo. The primary end point was the change in systolic blood pressure from baseline to week 12 in each baxdrostat group as compared with the placebo group. RESULTS: A total of 248 patients completed the trial. Dose-dependent changes in systolic blood pressure of -20.3 mm Hg, -17.5 mm Hg, -12.1 mm Hg, and -9.4 mm Hg were observed in the 2-mg, 1-mg, 0.5-mg, and placebo groups, respectively. The difference in the change in systolic blood pressure between the 2-mg group and the placebo group was -11.0 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI], -16.4 to -5.5; P<0.001), and the difference in this change between the 1-mg group and the placebo group was -8.1 mm Hg (95% CI, -13.5 to -2.8; P = 0.003). No deaths occurred during the trial, no serious adverse events were attributed by the investigators to baxdrostat, and there were no instances of adrenocortical insufficiency. Baxdrostat-related increases in the potassium level to 6.0 mmol per liter or greater occurred in 2 patients, but these increases did not recur after withdrawal and reinitiation of the drug. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with treatment-resistant hypertension who received baxdrostat had dose-related reductions in blood pressure. (Funded by CinCor Pharma; BrigHTN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04519658.).

Randomized, Controlled Trial of the FGF21 Analogue Pegozafermin in NASH.

BACKGROUND: Pegozafermin is a long-acting glycopegylated (pegylated with the use of site-specific glycosyltransferases) fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF21) analogue in development for the treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and severe hypertriglyceridemia. The efficacy and safety of pegozafermin in patients with biopsy-proven noncirrhotic NASH are not well established. METHODS: In this phase 2b, multicenter, double-blind, 24-week, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients with biopsy-confirmed NASH and stage F2 or F3 (moderate or severe) fibrosis to receive subcutaneous pegozafermin at a dose of 15 mg or 30 mg weekly or 44 mg once every 2 weeks or placebo weekly or every 2 weeks. The two primary end points were an improvement in fibrosis (defined as reduction by ≥1 stage, on a scale from 0 to 4, with higher stages indicating greater severity), with no worsening of NASH, at 24 weeks and NASH resolution without worsening of fibrosis at 24 weeks. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Among the 222 patients who underwent randomization, 219 received pegozafermin or placebo. The percentage of patients who met the criteria for fibrosis improvement was 7% in the pooled placebo group, 22% in the 15-mg pegozafermin group (difference vs. placebo, 14 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9 to 38), 26% in the 30-mg pegozafermin group (difference, 19 percentage points; 95% CI, 5 to 32; P = 0.009), and 27% in the 44-mg pegozafermin group (difference, 20 percentage points; 95% CI, 5 to 35; P = 0.008). The percentage of patients who met the criteria for NASH resolution was 2% in the placebo group, 37% in the 15-mg pegozafermin group (difference vs. placebo, 35 percentage points; 95% CI, 10 to 59), 23% in the 30-mg pegozafermin group (difference, 21 percentage points; 95% CI, 9 to 33), and 26% in the 44-mg pegozafermin group (difference, 24 percentage points; 95% CI, 10 to 37). The most common adverse events associated with pegozafermin therapy were nausea and diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: In this phase 2b trial, treatment with pegozafermin led to improvements in fibrosis. These results support the advancement of pegozafermin into phase 3 development. (Funded by 89bio; ENLIVEN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04929483.).

Effects of Catheter-Based Renal Denervation in Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several sham-controlled trials have investigated the efficacy and safety of catheter-based renal denervation (RDN) with mixed outcomes. We aimed to perform a comprehensive meta-analysis of all randomized, sham-controlled trials investigating RDN with first- and second-generation devices in hypertension. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library for eligible trials. Outcomes included both efficacy (24-hour and office systolic [SBP] and diastolic blood pressure [DBP]) and safety (all-cause death, vascular complication, renal artery stenosis >70%, hypertensive crisis) of RDN. We performed a study-level, pairwise, random-effects meta-analysis of the summary data. RESULTS: Ten trials comprising 2478 patients with hypertension while being either off or on treatment were included. Compared with sham, RDN reduced 24-hour and office systolic blood pressure by 4.4 mm Hg (95% CI, 2.7 to 6.1; P<0.00001) and 6.6 mm Hg (95% CI, 3.6 to 9.7; P<0.0001), respectively. The 24-hour and office diastolic blood pressure paralleled these findings (-2.6 mm Hg [95% CI, -3.6 to -1.5]; P<0.00001; -3.5 mm Hg [95% CI, -5.4 to -1.6]; P=0.0003). There was no difference in 24-hour and office systolic blood pressure reduction between trials with and without concomitant antihypertensive medication (P for interaction, 0.62 and 0.73, respectively). There was no relevant difference in vascular complications (odds ratio, 1.69 [95% CI, 0.57 to 5.0]; P=0.34), renal artery stenosis (odds ratio, 1.50 [95% CI, 0.06 to 36.97]; P=0.80), hypertensive crisis (odds ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.30 to 1.38]; P=0.26), and all-cause death (odds ratio, 1.76 [95% CI, 0.34 to 9.20]; P=0.50) between RDN and sham groups. Change of renal function based on estimated glomerular filtration rate was comparable between groups (P for interaction, 0.84). There was significant heterogeneity between trials. CONCLUSIONS: RDN safely reduces ambulatory and office systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure versus a sham procedure in the presence and absence of antihypertensive medication.

Myocardial Ischemic Syndromes: A New Nomenclature to Harmonize Evolving International Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Since the 1960s, cardiologists have adopted several binary classification systems for acute myocardial infarction (MI) that facilitated improved patient management. Conversely, for chronic stable manifestations of myocardial ischemia, various classifications have emerged over time, often with conflicting terminology-eg, "stable coronary artery disease" (CAD), "stable ischemic heart disease," and "chronic coronary syndromes" (CCS). While the 2019 European guidelines introduced CCS to impart symmetry with "acute coronary syndromes" (ACS), the 2023 American guidelines endorsed the alternative term "chronic coronary disease." An unintended consequence of these competing classifications is perpetuation of the restrictive terms "coronary" and 'disease', often connoting only a singular obstructive CAD mechanism. It is now important to advance a more broadly inclusive terminology for both obstructive and non-obstructive causes of angina and myocardial ischemia that fosters conceptual clarity and unifies dyssynchronous nomenclatures across guidelines. We, therefore, propose a new binary classification of "acute myocardial ischemic syndromes" and "non-acute myocardial ischemic syndromes," which comprises both obstructive epicardial and non-obstructive pathogenetic mechanisms, including microvascular dysfunction, vasospastic disorders, and non-coronary causes. We herein retain accepted categories of ACS, ST-segment elevation MI, and non-ST segment elevation MI, as important subsets for which revascularization is of proven clinical benefit, as well as new terms like ischemia and MI with non-obstructive coronary arteries. Overall, such a more encompassing nomenclature better aligns, unifies, and harmonizes different pathophysiologic causes of myocardial ischemia and should result in more refined diagnostic and therapeutic approaches targeted to the multiple pathobiological precipitants of angina pectoris, ischemia, and infarction.

Relating Lipoprotein(a) Concentrations to Cardiovascular Event Risk After Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Comparison of 3 Tests.

BACKGROUND: Lipoprotein(a) is a risk factor for cardiovascular events and modifies the benefit of PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitors. Lipoprotein(a) concentration can be measured with immunoassays reporting mass or molar concentration or a reference measurement system using mass spectrometry. Whether the relationships between lipoprotein(a) concentrations and cardiovascular events in a high-risk cohort differ across lipoprotein(a) methods is unknown. We compared the prognostic and predictive value of these types of lipoprotein(a) tests for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). METHODS: The ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab) compared the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab with placebo in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome. We compared risk of a MACE in the placebo group and MACE risk reduction with alirocumab according to baseline lipoprotein(a) concentration measured by Siemens N-latex nephelometric immunoassay (IA-mass; mg/dL), Roche Tina-Quant turbidimetric immunoassay (IA-molar; nmol/L), and a noncommercial mass spectrometry-based test (MS; nmol/L). Lipoprotein(a) values were transformed into percentiles for comparative modeling. Natural cubic splines estimated continuous relationships between baseline lipoprotein(a) and outcomes in each treatment group. Event rates were also determined across baseline lipoprotein(a) quartiles defined by each assay. RESULTS: Among 11 970 trial participants with results from all 3 tests, baseline median (Q1, Q3) lipoprotein(a) concentrations were 21.8 (6.9, 60.0) mg/dL, 45.0 (13.2, 153.8) nmol/L, and 42.2 (14.3, 143.1) nmol/L for IA-mass, IA-molar, and MS, respectively. The strongest correlation was between IA-molar and MS (r=0.990), with nominally weaker correlations between IA-mass and MS (r=0.967) and IA-mass and IA-molar (r=0.972). Relationships of lipoprotein(a) with MACE risk in the placebo group were nearly identical with each test, with estimated cumulative incidences differing by ≤0.4% across lipoprotein(a) percentiles, and all were incrementally prognostic after accounting for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (all spline P≤0.0003). Predicted alirocumab treatment effects were also nearly identical for each of the 3 tests, with estimated treatment hazard ratios differing by ≤0.07 between tests across percentiles and nominally less relative risk reduction by alirocumab at lower percentiles for all 3 tests. Absolute risk reduction with alirocumab increased with increasing lipoprotein(a) measured by each test, with significant linear trends across quartiles. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with recent acute coronary syndrome, 3 lipoprotein(a) tests were similarly prognostic for MACE in the placebo group and predictive of MACE reductions with alirocumab at the cohort level. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01663402.

Demystifying the Contemporary Role of 12-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Acute Coronary Syndrome.

For almost two decades, 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has been the only class I recommendation on DAPT in American and European guidelines, which has resulted in 12-month durations of DAPT therapy being the most frequently implemented in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) across the globe. Twelve-month DAPT was initially grounded in the results of the CURE (Clopidogrel in Unstable Angina to Prevent Recurrent Events) trial, which, by design, studied DAPT versus no DAPT rather than the optimal DAPT duration. The average DAPT duration in this study was 9 months, not 12 months. Subsequent ACS studies, which were not designed to assess DAPT duration, rather its composition (aspirin with prasugrel or ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel) were further interpreted as supportive evidence for 12-month DAPT duration. In these studies, the median DAPT duration was 9 or 15 months for ticagrelor and prasugrel, respectively. Several subsequent studies questioned the 12-month regimen and suggested that DAPT duration should either be fewer than 12 months in patients at high bleeding risk or more than 12 months in patients at high ischemic risk who can safely tolerate the treatment. Bleeding, rather than ischemic risk assessment, has emerged as a treatment modifier for maximizing the net clinical benefit of DAPT, due to excessive bleeding and no clear benefit of prolonged treatment regimens in high bleeding risk patients. Multiple DAPT de-escalation treatment strategies, including switching from prasugrel or ticagrelor to clopidogrel, reducing the dose of prasugrel or ticagrelor, and shortening DAPT duration while maintaining monotherapy with ticagrelor, have been consistently shown to reduce bleeding without increasing fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular or cerebral ischemic risks compared with 12-month DAPT. However, 12-month DAPT remains the only class-I DAPT recommendation for patients with ACS despite the lack of prospectively established evidence, leading to unnecessary and potentially harmful overtreatment in many patients. It is time for clinical practice and guideline recommendations to be updated to reflect the totality of the evidence regarding the optimal DAPT duration in ACS.

Derivation and Validation of the PRECISE-HBR Score to Predict Bleeding After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Accurate bleeding risk stratification after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is important for treatment individualization. However, there is still an unmet need for a more precise and standardized identification of high bleeding risk patients. We derived and validated a novel bleeding risk score by augmenting the PRECISE-DAPT score with the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) criteria. METHODS: The derivation cohort comprised 29,188 patients undergoing PCI, of whom 1136 (3.9%) had a Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding at 1 year, from four contemporary real-world registries and the XIENCE V USA trial. The PRECISE-DAPT score was refitted with a Fine-Gray model in the derivation cohort and extended with the ARC-HBR criteria. The primary outcome was BARC 3 or 5 bleeding within 1 year. Independent predictors of BARC 3 or 5 bleeding were selected at multivariable analysis (p<0.01). The discrimination of the score was internally assessed with apparent validation and cross-validation. The score was externally validated in 4578 patients from the MASTER DAPT trial and 5970 patients from the STOPDAPT-2 total cohort. RESULTS: The PRECISE-HBR score (age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, hemoglobin, white-blood-cell count, previous bleeding, oral anticoagulation, and ARC-HBR criteria) showed an area under the curve (AUC) for 1-year BARC 3 or 5 bleeding of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.71-0.74) at apparent validation, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.70-0.73) at cross-validation, 0.74 (95% CI, 0.68-0.80) in the MASTER DAPT, and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.66-0.79) in the STOPDAPT-2, with superior discrimination than the PRECISE-DAPT (cross-validation: Δ AUC, 0.01; p=0.02; MASTER DAPT: Δ AUC, 0.05; p=0.004; STOPDAPT-2: Δ AUC, 0.02; p=0.20) and other risk scores. In the derivation cohort, a cut-off of 23 points identified 11,414 patients (39.1%) with a 1-year BARC 3 or 5 bleeding risk ≥4%. An alternative version of the score, including acute myocardial infarction on admission instead of white-blood-cell count, showed similar predictive ability. CONCLUSIONS: The PRECISE-HBR score is a contemporary, simple 7-item risk score to predict bleeding after PCI, offering a moderate improvement in discrimination over multiple existing scores. Further evaluation is required to assess its impact on clinical practice.

Effect of Empagliflozin on Heart Failure Outcomes After Acute Myocardial Infarction: Insights From the EMPACT-MI Trial.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin reduces the risk of heart failure (HF) events in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk, chronic kidney disease, or prevalent HF irrespective of ejection fraction. Whereas the EMPACT-MI trial (Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction) showed that empagliflozin does not reduce the risk of the composite of hospitalization for HF and all-cause death, the effect of empagliflozin on first and recurrent HF events after myocardial infarction is unknown. METHODS: EMPACT-MI was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial that randomized 6522 patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction at risk for HF on the basis of newly developed left ventricular ejection fraction of <45% or signs or symptoms of congestion to receive empagliflozin 10 mg daily or placebo within 14 days of admission. In prespecified secondary analyses, treatment groups were analyzed for HF outcomes. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 17.9 months, the risk for first HF hospitalization and total HF hospitalizations was significantly lower in the empagliflozin compared with the placebo group (118 [3.6%] versus 153 [4.7%] patients with events; hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.60, 0.98]; P=0.031, for first HF hospitalization; 148 versus 207 events; rate ratio, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.51, 0.89]; P=0.006, for total HF hospitalizations). Subgroup analysis showed consistency of empagliflozin benefit across clinically relevant patient subgroups for first and total HF hospitalizations. The need for new use of diuretics, renin-angiotensin modulators, or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists after discharge was less in patients randomized to empagliflozin versus placebo (all P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin reduced the risk of HF in patients with left ventricular dysfunction or congestion after acute myocardial infarction. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04509674.

Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors and Major Adverse Cardiovascular Outcomes: A SMART-C Collaborative Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) consistently improve heart failure and kidney-related outcomes; however, effects on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) across different patient populations are less clear. METHODS: This was a collaborative trial-level meta-analysis from the SGLT2i Meta-analysis Cardio-Renal Trialists Consortium, which includes all phase 3, placebo-controlled, outcomes trials of SGLT2i across 3 patient populations (patients with diabetes at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure [HF], or chronic kidney disease). The outcomes of interest were MACE (composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction , or stroke), individual components of MACE (inclusive of fatal and nonfatal events), all-cause mortality, and death subtypes. Effect estimates for SGLT2i versus placebo were meta-analyzed across trials and examined across key subgroups (established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, previous myocardial infarction, diabetes, previous HF, albuminuria, chronic kidney disease stages, and risk groups). RESULTS: A total of 78 607 patients across 11 trials were included: 42 568 (54.2%), 20 725 (26.4%), and 15 314 (19.5%) were included from trials of patients with diabetes at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, HF, or chronic kidney disease, respectively. SGLT2i reduced the rate of MACE by 9% (hazard ration [HR], 0.91 [95% CI, 0.87-0.96], P<0.0001) with a consistent effect across all 3 patient populations (I2=0%) and across all key subgroups. This effect was primarily driven by a reduction in cardiovascular death (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.81-0.92], P<0.0001), with no significant effect for myocardial infarction in the overall population (HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.87-1.04], P=0.29), and no effect on stroke (HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.91-1.07], P=0.77). The benefit for cardiovascular death was driven primarily by reductions in HF death and sudden cardiac death (HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.46-1.02] and HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.78-0.95], respectively) and was generally consistent across subgroups, with the possible exception of being more apparent in those with albuminuria (Pinteraction=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: SGLT2i reduce the risk of MACE across a broad range of patients irrespective of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, diabetes, kidney function, or other major clinical characteristics at baseline. This effect is driven primarily by a reduction of cardiovascular death, particularly HF death and sudden cardiac death, without a significant effect on myocardial infarction in the overall population, and no effect on stroke. These data may help inform selection for SGLT2i therapies across the spectrum of cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic disease.

Cardiovascular and Cancer Risk with Tofacitinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Increases in lipid levels and cancers with tofacitinib prompted a trial of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and cancers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving tofacitinib as compared with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label, noninferiority, postauthorization, safety end-point trial involving patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate treatment who were 50 years of age or older and had at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive tofacitinib at a dose of 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily or a TNF inhibitor. The coprimary end points were adjudicated MACE and cancers, excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer. The noninferiority of tofacitinib would be shown if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio was less than 1.8 for the combined tofacitinib doses as compared with a TNF inhibitor. RESULTS: A total of 1455 patients received tofacitinib at a dose of 5 mg twice daily, 1456 received tofacitinib at a dose of 10 mg twice daily, and 1451 received a TNF inhibitor. During a median follow-up of 4.0 years, the incidences of MACE and cancer were higher with the combined tofacitinib doses (3.4% [98 patients] and 4.2% [122 patients], respectively) than with a TNF inhibitor (2.5% [37 patients] and 2.9% [42 patients]). The hazard ratios were 1.33 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.94) for MACE and 1.48 (95% CI, 1.04 to 2.09) for cancers; the noninferiority of tofacitinib was not shown. The incidences of adjudicated opportunistic infections (including herpes zoster and tuberculosis), all herpes zoster (nonserious and serious), and adjudicated nonmelanoma skin cancer were higher with tofacitinib than with a TNF inhibitor. Efficacy was similar in all three groups, with improvements from month 2 that were sustained through trial completion. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial comparing the combined tofacitinib doses with a TNF inhibitor in a cardiovascular risk-enriched population, risks of MACE and cancers were higher with tofacitinib and did not meet noninferiority criteria. Several adverse events were more common with tofacitinib. (Funded by Pfizer; ORAL Surveillance ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02092467.).

Polypill Strategy in Secondary Cardiovascular Prevention.

BACKGROUND: A polypill that includes key medications associated with improved outcomes (aspirin, angiotensin-converting-enzyme [ACE] inhibitor, and statin) has been proposed as a simple approach to the secondary prevention of cardiovascular death and complications after myocardial infarction. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized, controlled clinical trial, we assigned patients with myocardial infarction within the previous 6 months to a polypill-based strategy or usual care. The polypill treatment consisted of aspirin (100 mg), ramipril (2.5, 5, or 10 mg), and atorvastatin (20 or 40 mg). The primary composite outcome was cardiovascular death, nonfatal type 1 myocardial infarction, nonfatal ischemic stroke, or urgent revascularization. The key secondary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal type 1 myocardial infarction, or nonfatal ischemic stroke. RESULTS: A total of 2499 patients underwent randomization and were followed for a median of 36 months. A primary-outcome event occurred in 118 of 1237 patients (9.5%) in the polypill group and in 156 of 1229 (12.7%) in the usual-care group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.96; P = 0.02). A key secondary-outcome event occurred in 101 patients (8.2%) in the polypill group and in 144 (11.7%) in the usual-care group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.90; P = 0.005). The results were consistent across prespecified subgroups. Medication adherence as reported by the patients was higher in the polypill group than in the usual-care group. Adverse events were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with a polypill containing aspirin, ramipril, and atorvastatin within 6 months after myocardial infarction resulted in a significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events than usual care. (Funded by the European Union Horizon 2020; SECURE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02596126; EudraCT number, 2015-002868-17.).

Exposome in ischaemic heart disease: beyond traditional risk factors.

Ischaemic heart disease represents the leading cause of morbidity and mortality, typically induced by the detrimental effects of risk factors on the cardiovascular system. Although preventive interventions tackling conventional risk factors have helped to reduce the incidence of ischaemic heart disease, it remains a major cause of death worldwide. Thus, attention is now shifting to non-traditional risk factors in the built, natural, and social environments that collectively contribute substantially to the disease burden and perpetuate residual risk. Of importance, these complex factors interact non-linearly and in unpredictable ways to often enhance the detrimental effects attributable to a single or collection of these factors. For this reason, a new paradigm called the 'exposome' has recently been introduced by epidemiologists in order to define the totality of exposure to these new risk factors. The purpose of this review is to outline how these emerging risk factors may interact and contribute to the occurrence of ischaemic heart disease, with a particular attention on the impact of long-term exposure to different environmental pollutants, socioeconomic and psychological factors, along with infectious diseases such as influenza and COVID-19. Moreover, potential mitigation strategies for both individuals and communities will be discussed.

Myocardial ischaemic syndromes: a new nomenclature to harmonize evolving international clinical practice guidelines.

Since the 1960s, cardiologists have adopted several binary classification systems for acute myocardial infarction (MI) that facilitated improved patient management. Conversely, for chronic stable manifestations of myocardial ischaemia, various classifications have emerged over time, often with conflicting terminology-e.g. 'stable coronary artery disease' (CAD), 'stable ischaemic heart disease', and 'chronic coronary syndromes' (CCS). While the 2019 European guidelines introduced CCS to impart symmetry with 'acute coronary syndromes' (ACS), the 2023 American guidelines endorsed the alternative term 'chronic coronary disease'. An unintended consequence of these competing classifications is perpetuation of the restrictive terms 'coronary' and 'disease', often connoting only a singular obstructive CAD mechanism. It is now important to advance a more broadly inclusive terminology for both obstructive and non-obstructive causes of angina and myocardial ischaemia that fosters conceptual clarity and unifies dyssynchronous nomenclatures across guidelines. We, therefore, propose a new binary classification of 'acute myocardial ischaemic syndromes' and 'non-acute myocardial ischaemic syndromes', which comprises both obstructive epicardial and non-obstructive pathogenetic mechanisms, including microvascular dysfunction, vasospastic disorders, and non-coronary causes. We herein retain accepted categories of ACS, ST-segment elevation MI, and non-ST-segment elevation MI, as important subsets for which revascularization is of proven clinical benefit, as well as new terms like ischaemia and MI with non-obstructive coronary arteries. Overall, such a more encompassing nomenclature better aligns, unifies, and harmonizes different pathophysiologic causes of myocardial ischaemia and should result in more refined diagnostic and therapeutic approaches targeted to the multiple pathobiological precipitants of angina pectoris, ischaemia and infarction.

Atherosclerosis evaluation and cardiovascular risk estimation using coronary computed tomography angiography.

Clinical risk scores based on traditional risk factors of atherosclerosis correlate imprecisely to an individual's complex pathophysiological predisposition to atherosclerosis and provide limited accuracy for predicting major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Over the past two decades, computed tomography scanners and techniques for coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) analysis have substantially improved, enabling more precise atherosclerotic plaque quantification and characterization. The accuracy of CCTA for quantifying stenosis and atherosclerosis has been validated in numerous multicentre studies and has shown consistent incremental prognostic value for MACE over the clinical risk spectrum in different populations. Serial CCTA studies have advanced our understanding of vascular biology and atherosclerotic disease progression. The direct disease visualization of CCTA has the potential to be used synergistically with indirect markers of risk to significantly improve prevention of MACE, pending large-scale randomized evaluation.

Shorter Door-to-Needle Times Are Associated With Better Outcomes After Intravenous Thrombolytic Therapy and Endovascular Thrombectomy for Acute Ischemic Stroke.

BACKGROUND: Existing data and clinical trials could not determine whether faster intravenous thrombolytic therapy (IVT) translates into better long-term functional outcomes after acute ischemic stroke among those treated with endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). Patient-level national data can provide the required large population to study the associations between earlier IVT, versus later, with longitudinal functional outcomes and mortality in patients receiving IVT+EVT combined treatment. METHODS: This cohort study included older US patients (age ≥65 years) who received IVT within 4.5 hours or EVT within 7 hours after acute ischemic stroke using the linked 2015 to 2018 Get With The Guidelines-Stroke and Medicare database (38 913 treated with IVT only and 3946 with IVT+EVT). Primary outcome was home time, a patient-prioritized functional outcome. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality in 1 year. Multivariate logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the associations between door-to-needle (DTN) times and outcomes. RESULTS: Among patients treated with IVT+EVT, after adjusting for patient and hospital factors, including onset-to-EVT times, each 15-minute increase in DTN times for IVT was associated with significantly higher odds of zero home time in a year (never discharged to home) (adjusted odds ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.06-1.19]), less home time among those discharged to home (adjusted odds ratio, 0.93 per 1% of 365 days [95% CI, 0.89-0.98]), and higher all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.02-1.11]). These associations were also statistically significant among patients treated with IVT but at a modest degree (adjusted odds ratio, 1.04 for zero home time, 0.96 per 1% home time for those discharged to home, and adjusted hazard ratio 1.03 for mortality). In the secondary analysis where the IVT+EVT group was compared with 3704 patients treated with EVT only, shorter DTN times (≤60, 45, and 30 minutes) achieved incrementally more home time in a year, and more modified Rankin Scale 0 to 2 at discharge (22.3%, 23.4%, and 25.0%, respectively) versus EVT only (16.4%, P<0.001 for each). The benefit dissipated with DTN>60 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Among older patients with stroke treated with either IVT only or IVT+EVT, shorter DTN times are associated with better long-term functional outcomes and lower mortality. These findings support further efforts to accelerate thrombolytic administration in all eligible patients, including EVT candidates.

Graft Failure After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting and Its Association With Patient Characteristics and Clinical Events: A Pooled Individual Patient Data Analysis of Clinical Trials With Imaging Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Graft patency is the postulated mechanism for the benefits of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). However, systematic graft imaging assessment after CABG is rare, and there is a lack of contemporary data on the factors associated with graft failure and on the association between graft failure and clinical events after CABG. METHODS: We pooled individual patient data from randomized clinical trials with systematic CABG graft imaging to assess the incidence of graft failure and its association with clinical risk factors. The primary outcome was the composite of myocardial infarction or repeat revascularization occurring after CABG and before imaging. A 2-stage meta-analytic approach was used to evaluate the association between graft failure and the primary outcome. We also assessed the association between graft failure and myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, or all-cause death occurring after imaging. RESULTS: Seven trials were included comprising 4413 patients (mean age, 64.4±9.1 years; 777 [17.6%] women; 3636 [82.4%] men) and 13 163 grafts (8740 saphenous vein grafts and 4423 arterial grafts). The median time to imaging was 1.02 years (interquartile range [IQR], 1.00-1.03). Graft failure occurred in 1487 (33.7%) patients and in 2190 (16.6%) grafts. Age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.08 [per 10-year increment] [95% CI, 1.01-1.15]; P=0.03), female sex (aOR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.08-1.50]; P=0.004), and smoking (aOR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.04-1.38]; P=0.01) were independently associated with graft failure, whereas statins were associated with a protective effect (aOR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.63-0.88]; P<0.001). Graft failure was associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction or repeat revascularization occurring between CABG and imaging assessment (8.0% in patients with graft failure versus 1.7% in patients without graft failure; aOR, 3.98 [95% CI, 3.54-4.47]; P<0.001). Graft failure was also associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction or repeat revascularization occurring after imaging (7.8% versus 2.0%; aOR, 2.59 [95% CI, 1.86-3.62]; P<0.001). All-cause death after imaging occurred more frequently in patients with graft failure compared with patients without graft failure (11.0% versus 2.1%; aOR, 2.79 [95% CI, 2.01-3.89]; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary practice, graft failure remains common among patients undergoing CABG and is strongly associated with adverse cardiac events.

Empagliflozin and Left Ventricular Remodeling in People Without Diabetes: Primary Results of the EMPA-HEART 2 CardioLink-7 Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors have been demonstrated to promote reverse cardiac remodeling in people with diabetes or heart failure. Although it has been theorized that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors might afford similar benefits in people without diabetes or prevalent heart failure, this has not been evaluated. We sought to determine whether sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition with empagliflozin leads to a decrease in left ventricular (LV) mass in people without type 2 diabetes or significant heart failure. METHODS: Between April 2021 and January 2022, 169 individuals, 40 to 80 years of age, without diabetes but with risk factors for adverse cardiac remodeling were randomly assigned to empagliflozin (10 mg/d; n=85) or placebo (n=84) for 6 months. The primary outcome was the 6-month change in LV mass indexed (LVMi) to baseline body surface area as measured by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Other measures included 6-month changes in LV end-diastolic and LV end-systolic volumes indexed to baseline body surface area and LV ejection fraction. RESULTS: Among the 169 participants (141 men [83%]; mean age, 59.3±10.5 years), baseline LVMi was 63.2±17.9 g/m2 and 63.8±14.0 g/m2 for the empagliflozin- and placebo-assigned groups, respectively. The difference (95% CI) in LVMi at 6 months in the empagliflozin group versus placebo group adjusted for baseline LVMi was -0.30 g/m2 (-2.1 to 1.5 g/m2; P=0.74). Median baseline (interquartile range) NT-proBNP (N-terminal-pro B-type natriuretic peptide) was 51 pg/mL (20-105 pg/mL) and 55 pg/mL (21-132 pg/mL) for the empagliflozin- and placebo-assigned groups, respectively. The 6-month treatment effect of empagliflozin versus placebo (95% CI) on blood pressure and NT-proBNP (adjusted for baseline values) were -1.3 mm Hg (-5.2 to 2.6 mm Hg; P=0.52), 0.69 mm Hg (-1.9 to 3.3 mm Hg; P=0.60), and -6.1 pg/mL (-37.0 to 24.8 pg/mL; P=0.70) for systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and NT-proBNP, respectively. No clinically meaningful between-group differences in LV volumes (diastolic and systolic indexed to baseline body surface area) or ejection fraction were observed. No difference in adverse events was noted between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among people with neither diabetes nor significant heart failure but with risk factors for adverse cardiac remodeling, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition with empagliflozin did not result in a meaningful reduction in LVMi after 6 months. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04461041.

Defining Strategies of Modulation of Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Consensus Document from the Academic Research Consortium.

Antiplatelet therapy is the mainstay of pharmacologic treatment to prevent thrombotic or ischemic events in patients with coronary artery disease treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and those treated medically for an acute coronary syndrome. The use of antiplatelet therapy comes at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding complications. Defining the optimal intensity of platelet inhibition according to the clinical presentation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and individual patient factors is a clinical challenge. Modulation of antiplatelet therapy is a medical action that is frequently performed to balance the risk of thrombotic or ischemic events and the risk of bleeding. This aim may be achieved by reducing (ie, de-escalation) or increasing (ie, escalation) the intensity of platelet inhibition by changing the type, dose, or number of antiplatelet drugs. Because de-escalation or escalation can be achieved in different ways, with a number of emerging approaches, confusion arises with terminologies that are often used interchangeably. To address this issue, this Academic Research Consortium collaboration provides an overview and definitions of different strategies of antiplatelet therapy modulation for patients with coronary artery disease, including but not limited to those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and consensus statements on standardized definitions.