Intravenous iron for heart failure, iron deficiency definitions, and clinical response: the IRONMAN trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: What is the relationship between blood tests for iron deficiency, including anaemia, and the response to intravenous iron in patients with heart failure? METHODS: In the IRONMAN trial, 1137 patients with heart failure, ejection fraction ≤ 45%, and either serum ferritin < 100 µg/L or transferrin saturation (TSAT) < 20% were randomized to intravenous ferric derisomaltose (FDI) or usual care. Relationships were investigated between baseline anaemia severity, ferritin and TSAT, to changes in haemoglobin from baseline to 4 months, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure (MLwHF) score and 6-minute walk distance achieved at 4 months, and clinical events, including heart failure hospitalization (recurrent) or cardiovascular death. RESULTS: The rise in haemoglobin after administering FDI, adjusted for usual care, was greater for lower baseline TSAT (Pinteraction < .0001) and ferritin (Pinteraction = .028) and more severe anaemia (Pinteraction = .014). MLwHF scores at 4 months were somewhat lower (better) with FDI for more anaemic patients (overall Pinteraction = .14; physical Pinteraction = .085; emotional Pinteraction = .043) but were not related to baseline TSAT or ferritin. Blood tests did not predict difference in achieved walking distance for those randomized to FDI compared to control. The absence of anaemia or a TSAT ≥ 20% was associated with lower event rates and little evidence of benefit from FDI. More severe anaemia or TSAT < 20%, especially when ferritin was ≥100 µg/L, was associated with higher event rates and greater absolute reductions in events with FDI, albeit not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: This hypothesis-generating analysis suggests that anaemia or TSAT < 20% with ferritin > 100 µg/L might identify patients with heart failure who obtain greater benefit from intravenous iron. This interpretation requires confirmation.

A Randomized Comparison of the Treatment Sequence of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Rationale and Design of the TAVI PCI Trial.

BACKGROUND: About half of patients with severe aortic stenosis present with concomitant coronary artery disease. The optimal timing of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with severe aortic stenosis and concomitant coronary artery disease remains unknown. STUDY DESIGN: The TAVI PCI trial is a prospective, international, multicenter, randomized, two-arm, open-label study planning to enroll a total of 986 patients. It is designed to investigate whether the strategy "angiography-guided complete revascularization after (within 1-45 days) TAVI" is non-inferior to the strategy "angiography-guided complete revascularization before (within 1-45 days) TAVI" using the Edwards SAPIEN 3 or 3 Ultra Transcatheter Heart Valve™ in patients with severe aortic stenosis and concomitant coronary artery disease. Patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to one of the two treatment strategies. The primary end point is a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, rehospitalization (valve- or procedure-related including heart failure), or life-threatening/disabling or major bleeding at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: The TAVI PCI trial tests the hypothesis that the strategy "PCI after TAVI" is non-inferior to the strategy "PCI before TAVI" in patients with severe aortic stenosis and concomitant coronary artery disease.

Prenucleation Cluster Pathway is Inconsistent with CaCO3 Kinetics.

It has been debated whether CaCO3 nucleates classically with the attainment of a critical cluster size or nonclassically with the restructuring of a prenucleation cluster (PNC). Here, we determine from the nucleation kinetics of CaCO3 that the transition state is composed of about 10 formula units, irrespective of the supersaturation. Crucially, the size of the transition state is considerably smaller than the average PNC size estimated from experimental characterization. This size discrepancy suggests the PNCs are uninvolved in nucleation, and the kinetics indicate that if CaCO3 nucleates classically, the transition state must be an abnormally unstable (antimagic) cluster.

Intravenous iron and SGLT2 inhibitors in iron-deficient patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

AIMS: To explore the potential interaction between use of SGLT2 inhibitors and the increase in haemoglobin in patients randomized to intravenous iron or the control group in the IRONMAN (Effectiveness of Intravenous Iron Treatment versus Standard Care in Patients with Heart Failure and Iron Deficiency) trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a post hoc exploratory analysis of the IRONMAN trial which randomized patients with heart failure, a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 45% and iron deficiency (transferrin saturation <20% or ferritin <100 µg/L) to open label intravenous ferric derisomaltose or usual care. Of the 1137 randomized patients, 29 (2.6%) were taking an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline. The mean (SD) change in haemoglobin from baseline at 4 weeks in those taking an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline was 1.3 (1.2) g/dL in patients randomized to ferric derisomaltose and 0.1 (0.7) g/dL in the usual care group; between-group difference = 1.0 g/dL (95% CI 0.1, 1.8). The equivalent numbers in the no SGLT2 inhibitor group were 0.6 (0.9) g/dL in those randomized to ferric derisomaltose and 0.1 (0.8) g/dL in the usual care group; between-group difference = 0.4 g/dL (95% CI 0.3, 1.6); interaction P value = 0.10. No patient receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline developed polycythaemia during follow-up (defined as haemoglobin >16.5 g/dL [men] or >16 g/dL [women]). CONCLUSIONS: In the IRONMAN trial, there was a trend to a greater increase in haemoglobin with ferric derisomaltose in iron-deficient patients taking an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline, as compared with those not taking one.

Clinical outcomes and adverse events of bariatric surgery in adults with severe obesity in Scotland: the SCOTS observational cohort study.

Background: Bariatric surgery is a common procedure worldwide for the treatment of severe obesity and associated comorbid conditions but there is a lack of evidence as to medium-term safety and effectiveness outcomes in a United Kingdom setting. Objective: To establish the clinical outcomes and adverse events of different bariatric surgical procedures, their impact on quality of life and the effect on comorbidities. Design: Prospective observational cohort study. Setting: National Health Service secondary care and private practice in Scotland, United Kingdom. Participants: Adults (age >16 years) undergoing their first bariatric surgery procedure. Main outcome measures: Change in weight, hospital length of stay, readmission and reoperation rate, mortality, diabetes outcomes (HbA1c, medications), quality of life, anxiety, depression. Data sources: Patient-reported outcome measures, hospital records, national electronic health records (Scottish Morbidity Record 01, Scottish Care Information Diabetes, National Records Scotland, Prescription Information System). Results: Between December 2013 and February 2017, 548 eligible patients were approached and 445 participants were enrolled in the study. Of those, 335 had bariatric surgery and 1 withdrew from the study. Mean age was 46.0 (9.2) years, 74.7% were female and the median body mass index was 46.4 (42.4; 52.0) kg/m2. Weight was available for 128 participants at 3 years: mean change was -19.0% (±14.1) from the operation and -24.2% (±12.8) from the start of the preoperative weight-management programme. One hundred and thirty-nine (41.4%) participants were readmitted to hospital in the same or subsequent 35 months post surgery, 18 (5.4% of the operated cohort) had a reoperation or procedure considered to be related to bariatric surgery gastrointestinal complications or revisions. Fewer than five participants (<2%) died during follow-up. HbA1c was available for 93/182 and diabetes medications for 139/182 participants who had type 2 diabetes prior to surgery; HbA1c mean change was -5.72 (±16.71) (p = 0.001) mmol/mol and 65.5% required no diabetes medications (p < 0.001) at 3 years post surgery. Physical quality of life, available for 101/335 participants, improved in the 3 years post surgery, mean change in Rand 12-item Short Form Survey physical component score 8.32 (±8.95) (p < 0.001); however, there was no change in the prevalence of anxiety or depression. Limitations: Due to low numbers of bariatric surgery procedures in Scotland, recruitment was stopped before achieving the intended 2000 participants and follow-up was reduced from 10 years to 3 years. Conclusions: Bariatric surgery is a safe and effective treatment for obesity. Patients in Scotland, UK, appear to be older and have higher body mass than international comparators, which may be due to the small number of procedures performed. Future work: Intervention studies are required to identify the optimal pre- and post surgery pathway to maximise safety and cost-effectiveness. Study registration: This study is registered as ISRCTN47072588. Funding details: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 10/42/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 7. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Bariatric surgery is performed on the stomach and small bowel to help people living with obesity lose weight. Our research study has looked at who is getting bariatric surgery, if they are having problems afterwards, how much weight they lose and if their medical conditions improve. A total of 444 people who were attending bariatric surgery services in Scotland, UK, agreed to take part and 336 had surgery. One hundred and eighty-nine of them completed a questionnaire before their surgery and 85 of them after 3 years, to tell us about how they were feeling physically and mentally. We looked at their computer hospital records to see how long they spent in hospital, any medical problems and changes to diabetes medicines and tests. One in five people taking part did not have surgery after all; they changed their mind or the hospital teams did not think it would be safe or work well for the patient. Those who had surgery lost 19% of their body weight and those with type 2 diabetes needed less or no medication 3 years after the surgery. The effect of physical symptoms on day-to-day activities improved but mental health did not. Compared to other countries, the people taking part were older, heavier and sicker. They spent longer in hospital after surgery and were more likely to be readmitted to hospital. How many appointments they had or what type of health professional they saw before or after surgery did not change these results. We had hoped to have far more people in this study and be able to answer more questions, but not enough people were getting bariatric surgery in Scotland for us to ask them to take part. Further research is needed to find the best ways to care for people living with obesity who would benefit from bariatric surgery.

Allopurinol and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease: the ALL-HEART RCT and economic evaluation.

Background: Allopurinol is a xanthine oxidase inhibitor that lowers serum uric acid and is used to prevent acute gout flares in patients with gout. Observational and small interventional studies have suggested beneficial cardiovascular effects of allopurinol. Objective: To determine whether allopurinol improves major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease. Design: Prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint multicentre clinical trial. Setting: Four hundred and twenty-four UK primary care practices. Participants: Aged 60 years and over with ischaemic heart disease but no gout. Interventions: Participants were randomised (1 : 1) using a central web-based randomisation system to receive allopurinol up to 600 mg daily that was added to usual care or to continue usual care. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the composite of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke or cardiovascular death. Secondary outcomes were non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, hospitalisation for heart failure, hospitalisation for acute coronary syndrome, coronary revascularisation, hospitalisation for acute coronary syndrome or coronary revascularisation, all cardiovascular hospitalisations, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. The hazard ratio (allopurinol vs. usual care) in a Cox proportional hazards model was assessed for superiority in a modified intention-to-treat analysis. Results: From 7 February 2014 to 2 October 2017, 5937 participants were enrolled and randomised to the allopurinol arm (n = 2979) or the usual care arm (n = 2958). A total of 5721 randomised participants (2853 allopurinol; 2868 usual care) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis population (mean age 72.0 years; 75.5% male). There was no difference between the allopurinol and usual care arms in the primary endpoint, 314 (11.0%) participants in the allopurinol arm (2.47 events per 100 patient-years) and 325 (11.3%) in the usual care arm (2.37 events per 100 patient-years), hazard ratio 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.21); p = 0.65. Two hundred and eighty-eight (10.1%) participants in the allopurinol arm and 303 (10.6%) participants in the usual care arm died, hazard ratio 1.02 (95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.20); p = 0.77. The pre-specified health economic analysis plan was to perform a 'within trial' cost-utility analysis if there was no statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint, so NHS costs and quality-adjusted life-years were estimated over a 5-year period. The difference in costs between treatment arms was +£115 higher for allopurinol (95% confidence interval £17 to £210) with no difference in quality-adjusted life-years (95% confidence interval -0.061 to +0.060). We conclude that there is no evidence that allopurinol used in line with the study protocol is cost-effective. Limitations: The results may not be generalisable to younger populations, other ethnic groups or patients with more acute ischaemic heart disease. One thousand six hundred and thirty-seven participants (57.4%) in the allopurinol arm withdrew from randomised treatment, but an on-treatment analysis gave similar results to the main analysis. Conclusions: The ALL-HEART study showed that treatment with allopurinol 600 mg daily did not improve cardiovascular outcomes compared to usual care in patients with ischaemic heart disease. We conclude that allopurinol should not be recommended for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with ischaemic heart disease but no gout. Future work: The effects of allopurinol on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease and co-existing hyperuricaemia or clinical gout could be explored in future studies. Trial registration: This trial is registered as EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2013-003559-39) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN 32017426). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 11/36/41) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 18. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

The purpose of the ALL-HEART study was to determine whether giving allopurinol to people with ischaemic heart disease (also commonly known as coronary heart disease) would reduce their risk of having a heart attack, stroke or of dying from cardiovascular disease. Allopurinol is a medication usually given to patients with gout to prevent acute gout flares. It is not currently used to treat ischaemic heart disease. We randomly allocated people aged over 60 years with ischaemic heart disease to take up to 600 mg of allopurinol daily (in addition to their usual care) or to continue with their usual care. We then monitored participants for several years and recorded any major health events such as heart attacks, strokes and deaths. We obtained most of the follow-up data from centrally held electronic hospital admissions and death records, making the study easier for participants and more cost-efficient. We asked participants in both groups to complete questionnaires to assess their quality of life during the study. We also collected data to determine whether there was any economic benefit to the NHS of using allopurinol in patients with ischaemic heart disease. There was no difference in the risk of heart attacks, strokes or death from cardiovascular disease between the participants given allopurinol and those in the group continuing their usual care. We also found no difference in the risks of other cardiovascular events, deaths from any cause or quality-of-life measurements between the allopurinol and usual care groups. The results of the ALL-HEART study suggest that we should not recommend that allopurinol be given to people with ischaemic heart disease to prevent further cardiovascular events or deaths.