Tofacitinib in Patients Hospitalized with Covid-19 Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, in patients who are hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pneumonia are unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, hospitalized adults with Covid-19 pneumonia to receive either tofacitinib at a dose of 10 mg or placebo twice daily for up to 14 days or until hospital discharge. The primary outcome was the occurrence of death or respiratory failure through day 28 as assessed with the use of an eight-level ordinal scale (with scores ranging from 1 to 8 and higher scores indicating a worse condition). All-cause mortality and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 289 patients underwent randomization at 15 sites in Brazil. Overall, 89.3% of the patients received glucocorticoids during hospitalization. The cumulative incidence of death or respiratory failure through day 28 was 18.1% in the tofacitinib group and 29.0% in the placebo group (risk ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.97; P = 0.04). Death from any cause through day 28 occurred in 2.8% of the patients in the tofacitinib group and in 5.5% of those in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.15 to 1.63). The proportional odds of having a worse score on the eight-level ordinal scale with tofacitinib, as compared with placebo, was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.36 to 1.00) at day 14 and 0.54 (95% CI, 0.27 to 1.06) at day 28. Serious adverse events occurred in 20 patients (14.1%) in the tofacitinib group and in 17 (12.0%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with Covid-19 pneumonia, tofacitinib led to a lower risk of death or respiratory failure through day 28 than placebo. (Funded by Pfizer; STOP-COVID ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04469114.).

Predictors of bleeding and thrombotic events among patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer: insights from the ACTION randomized clinical trial.

Therapeutic anticoagulation showed inconsistent results in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and selection of the best patients to use this strategy still a challenge balancing the risk of thrombotic and hemorrhagic outcomes. The present post-hoc analysis of the ACTION trial evaluated the variables independently associated with both bleeding events (major bleeding or clinically relevant non-major bleeding) and the composite outcomes thrombotic events (venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, or major adverse limb events). Variables were assessed one by one with independent logistic regressions and final models were chosen based on Akaike information criteria. The model for bleeding events showed an area under the curve of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53 to 0.73), while the model for thrombotic events had an area under the curve of 0.72 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.79). Non-invasive respiratory support was associated with thrombotic but not bleeding events, while invasive ventilation was associated with both outcomes (Odds Ratio of 7.03 [95 CI% 1.95 to 25.18] for thrombotic and 3.14 [95% CI 1.11 to 8.84] for bleeding events). Beyond respiratory support, creatinine level (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.01 95% CI 1.00 to 1.02 for every 1.0 mg/dL) and history of coronary disease (OR 3.67; 95% CI 1.32 to 10.29) were also independently associated to the risk of thrombotic events. Non-invasive respiratory support, history of coronary disease, and creatinine level may help to identify hospitalized COVID-19 patients at higher risk of thrombotic complications.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04394377.

Efficacy and Safety of Dapagliflozin in Type 2 Diabetes According to Baseline Blood Pressure: Observations From DECLARE-TIMI 58 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Dapagliflozin improved heart failure and kidney outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) with or at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial (Dapagliflozin Effect on Cardiovascular Events - Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 58). Here, the aim was to analyze the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin stratified according to baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP). METHODS: The DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial randomly assigned patients with T2DM and either previous atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk factors to dapagliflozin or placebo. Patients were categorized by baseline SBP levels: <120, 120 to 129, 130 to 139, 140 to 159, and ≥160 mm Hg (normal, elevated, stage 1, stage 2, and severe hypertension, respectively). Efficacy outcomes of interest were hospitalization for heart failure and a renal-specific composite outcome (sustained decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate by 40%, progression to end-stage renal disease, or renal death). Safety outcomes included symptoms of volume depletion, lower extremity amputations, and acute kidney injury. RESULTS: The trial comprised 17 160 patients; mean age, 64.0±6.8 years; 37.4% women; median duration of T2DM, 11 years; 40.6% with prevalent cardiovascular disease. Overall, dapagliflozin reduced SBP by 2.4 mm Hg (95% CI, 1.9-2.9; P<0.0001) compared with placebo at 48 months. The beneficial effects of dapagliflozin on hospitalization for heart failure and renal outcomes were consistent across all baseline SBP categories, with no evidence of modification of treatment effect (Pinteractions=0.28 and 0.52, respectively). Among normotensive patients, the hazard ratios were 0.66 (95% CI, 0.42-1.05) and 0.39 (95% CI, 0.19-0.78), respectively, for hospitalization for heart failure and the renal-specific outcome. Events of volume depletion, amputation, and acute kidney injury did not differ with dapagliflozin overall or within any baseline SBP group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T2DM with or at high atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk, dapagliflozin reduced risk for hospitalization for heart failure and renal outcomes regardless of baseline SBP, with no difference in adverse events of interest at any level of baseline SBP. These results indicate that dapagliflozin provides cardiorenal benefits in patients with T2DM at high atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk independent of baseline blood pressure. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01730534.

Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase 2b Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Recombinant Human Lecithin Cholesterol Acyltransferase in Acute ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Results of REAL-TIMI 63B.

BACKGROUND: High-density lipoprotein plays a key role in reverse cholesterol transport. In addition, high-density lipoprotein particles may be cardioprotective and reduce infarct size in the setting of myocardial injury. Lecithin-cholesterol acyltransferase is a rate-limiting enzyme in reverse cholesterol transport. MEDI6012 is a recombinant human lecithin-cholesterol acyltransferase that increases high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Administration of lecithin-cholesterol acyltransferase has the potential to reduce infarct size and regress coronary plaque in acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. METHODS: REAL-TIMI 63B (A Randomized, Placebo­controlled Phase 2b Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of MEDI6012 in Acute ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction) was a phase 2B multinational, placebo-controlled, randomized trial. Patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction within 6 hours of symptom onset and planned for percutaneous intervention were randomly assigned 2:1 to MEDI6012 (2- or 6-dose regimen) or placebo and followed for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was infarct size as a percentage of left ventricular mass by cardiac MRI at 10 to 12 weeks, with the primary analysis in patients with TIMI Flow Grade 0 to 1 before percutaneous intervention who received at least 2 doses of MEDI6012. The secondary outcome was change in noncalcified plaque volume on coronary computed tomographic angiography from baseline to 10 to 12 weeks with the primary analysis in patients who received all 6 doses of MEDI6012. RESULTS: A total of 593 patients were randomly assigned. Patients were a median of 62 years old, 77.9% male, and 95.8% statin naive. Median time from symptom onset to randomization was 146 (interquartile range [IQR], 103-221) minutes and from hospitalization to randomization was 12.7 (IQR, 6.6-24.0) minutes, and the first dose of drug was administered a median of 8 (IQR, 3-13) minutes before percutaneous intervention. The index myocardial infarction was anterior in 69.6% and TIMI Flow Grade 0 to 1 in 65.1% of patients. At 12 weeks, infarct size did not differ between treatment groups (MEDI6012: 9.71%, IQR 4.79-16.38; placebo: 10.48%, [IQR, 4.92-16.61], 1-sided P=0.79. There was also no difference in noncalcified plaque volume (geometric mean ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, NA-1.10], 1-sided P=0.30). There was no significant difference in treatment emergent serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of MEDI6012 in patients with acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction did not result in a significant reduction in infarct size or noncalcified plaque volume at 12 weeks. MEDI6012 was well tolerated with no excess in overall serious adverse events. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03578809.

Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin in Mild-to-Moderate Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have been used to treat patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). However, evidence on the safety and efficacy of these therapies is limited. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label, three-group, controlled trial involving hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed Covid-19 who were receiving either no supplemental oxygen or a maximum of 4 liters per minute of supplemental oxygen. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive standard care, standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily, or standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily plus azithromycin at a dose of 500 mg once daily for 7 days. The primary outcome was clinical status at 15 days as assessed with the use of a seven-level ordinal scale (with levels ranging from one to seven and higher scores indicating a worse condition) in the modified intention-to-treat population (patients with a confirmed diagnosis of Covid-19). Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 667 patients underwent randomization; 504 patients had confirmed Covid-19 and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. As compared with standard care, the proportional odds of having a higher score on the seven-point ordinal scale at 15 days was not affected by either hydroxychloroquine alone (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 2.11; P = 1.00) or hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.73; P = 1.00). Prolongation of the corrected QT interval and elevation of liver-enzyme levels were more frequent in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, than in those who were not receiving either agent. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care. (Funded by the Coalition Covid-19 Brazil and EMS Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04322123.).

Therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration (ACTION): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0·3-0·7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed. FINDINGS: From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28 899 (34·8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (41·3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0·86 [95% CI 0·59-1·22], p=0·40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3·64 [95% CI 1·61-8·27], p=0·0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group. INTERPRETATION: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagulation. Therefore, use of therapeutic-dose rivaroxaban, and other direct oral anticoagulants, should be avoided in these patients in the absence of an evidence-based indication for oral anticoagulation. FUNDING: Coalition COVID-19 Brazil, Bayer SA.

Effect of Dapagliflozin on Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Insights From the DECLARE-TIMI 58 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFL) are associated with both diabetes mellitus and its related comorbidities, including hypertension, obesity, and heart failure (HF). SGLT2 (sodium-glucose cotransporter 2) inhibitors have been shown to lower blood pressure, reduce weight, have salutary effects on left ventricular remodeling, and reduce hospitalization for HF and cardiovascular death in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. We therefore investigated whether SGLT2 inhibitors could also reduce the risk of AF/AFL. METHODS: DECLARE-TIMI 58 (Dapagliflozin Effect on Cardiovascular Events-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 58) studied the efficacy and safety of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin versus placebo in 17 160 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and either multiple risk factors for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (n=10 186) or known atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (n=6974). We explored the effect of dapagliflozin on the first and total number of AF/AFL events in patients with (n=1116) and without prevalent AF/AFL using Cox and negative binomial models, respectively. AF/AFL events were identified by search of the safety database using MedDRA preferred terms ("atrial fibrillation," "atrial flutter"). RESULTS: Dapagliflozin reduced the risk of AF/AFL events by 19% (264 versus 325 events; 7.8 versus 9.6 events per 1000 patient-years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.81 [95% CI, 0.68-0.95]; P=0.009). The reduction in AF/AFL events was consistent regardless of presence or absence of a history of AF/AFL at baseline (previous AF/AFL: HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.58-1.09]; no AF/AFL: HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.67-0.98]; P for interaction 0.89). Similarly, presence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.66-1.04]) versus multiple risk factors (HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.62-0.99]; P for interaction 0.72) or a history of HF (HF: HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.55-1.11]; No HF: HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.68-0.97]; P for interaction 0.88) did not modify the reduction in AF/AFL events observed with dapagliflozin. Moreover, there was no effect modification by sex, history of ischemic stroke, glycated hemoglobin A1c, body mass index, blood pressure, or estimated glomerular filtration rate (all P for interaction >0.20). Dapagliflozin also reduced the total number (first and recurrent) of AF/AFL events (337 versus 432; incidence rate ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.64-0.92]; P=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Dapagliflozin decreased the incidence of reported episodes of AF/AFL adverse events in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This effect was consistent regardless of the patient's previous history of AF, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, or HF. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01730534.

Azithromycin in addition to standard of care versus standard of care alone in the treatment of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19 in Brazil (COALITION II): a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of azithromycin in the treatment of COVID-19 remain uncertain. We assessed whether adding azithromycin to standard of care, which included hydroxychloroquine, would improve clinical outcomes of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised clinical trial at 57 centres in Brazil. We enrolled patients admitted to hospital with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and at least one additional severity criteria as follows: use of oxygen supplementation of more than 4 L/min flow; use of high-flow nasal cannula; use of non-invasive mechanical ventilation; or use of invasive mechanical ventilation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to azithromycin (500 mg via oral, nasogastric, or intravenous administration once daily for 10 days) plus standard of care or to standard of care without macrolides. All patients received hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice daily for 10 days) because that was part of standard of care treatment in Brazil for patients with severe COVID-19. The primary outcome, assessed by an independent adjudication committee masked to treatment allocation, was clinical status at day 15 after randomisation, assessed by a six-point ordinal scale, with levels ranging from 1 to 6 and higher scores indicating a worse condition (with odds ratio [OR] greater than 1·00 favouring the control group). The primary outcome was assessed in all patients in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population who had severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection confirmed by molecular or serological testing before randomisation (ie, modified ITT [mITT] population). Safety was assessed in all patients according to which treatment they received, regardless of original group assignment. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04321278. FINDINGS: 447 patients were enrolled from March 28 to May 19, 2020. COVID-19 was confirmed in 397 patients who constituted the mITT population, of whom 214 were assigned to the azithromycin group and 183 to the control group. In the mITT population, the primary endpoint was not significantly different between the azithromycin and control groups (OR 1·36 [95% CI 0·94-1·97], p=0·11). Rates of adverse events, including clinically relevant ventricular arrhythmias, resuscitated cardiac arrest, acute kidney failure, and corrected QT interval prolongation, were not significantly different between groups. INTERPRETATION: In patients with severe COVID-19, adding azithromycin to standard of care treatment (which included hydroxychloroquine) did not improve clinical outcomes. Our findings do not support the routine use of azithromycin in combination with hydroxychloroquine in patients with severe COVID-19. FUNDING: COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and EMS.

Randomized clinical trial to evaluate a routine full anticoagulation Strategy in Patients with Coronavirus Infection (SARS-CoV2) admitted to hospital: Rationale and design of the ACTION (AntiCoagulaTlon cOroNavirus)-Coalition IV trial.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies have suggested a higher risk of thrombotic events in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Moreover, elevated D-dimer levels have been identified as an important prognostic marker in COVID-19 directly associated with disease severity and progression. Prophylactic anticoagulation for hospitalized COVID-19 patients might not be enough to prevent thrombotic events; therefore, therapeutic anticoagulation regimens deserve clinical investigation. DESIGN: ACTION is an academic-led, pragmatic, multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase IV clinical trial that aims to enroll around 600 patients at 40 sites participating in the Coalition COVID-19 Brazil initiative. Eligible patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 with symptoms up to 14 days and elevated D-dimer levels will be randomized to a strategy of full-dose anticoagulation for 30 days with rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (or full-dose heparin if oral administration is not feasible) vs standard of care with any approved venous thromboembolism prophylaxis regimen during hospitalization. A confirmation of COVID-19 was mandatory for study entry, based on specific tests used in clinical practice (RT-PCR, antigen test, IgM test) collected before randomization, regardless of in the outpatient setting or not. Randomization will be stratified by clinical stability at presentation. The primary outcome is a hierarchical analysis of mortality, length of hospital stay, or duration of oxygen therapy at the end of 30 days. Secondary outcomes include the World Health Organization's 8-point ordinal scale at 30 days and the following efficacy outcomes: incidence of venous thromboembolism , acute myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, major adverse limb events, duration of oxygen therapy, disease progression, and biomarkers. The primary safety outcomes are major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria. SUMMARY: The ACTION trial will evaluate whether in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban for stable patients, or enoxaparin for unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban through 30 days compared with standard prophylactic anticoagulation improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer levels.

Long-term ticagrelor for secondary prevention in patients with prior myocardial infarction and no history of coronary stenting: insights from PEGASUS-TIMI 54.

AIMS: PEGASUS-TIMI 54 demonstrated that long-term dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and ticagrelor reduced the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), with an acceptable increase in bleeding, in patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI). While much of the discussion around prolonged DAPT has been focused on stented patients, patients with prior MI without prior coronary stenting comprise a clinically important subgroup. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a pre-specified analysis from PEGASUS-TIMI 54, which randomized 21 162 patients with prior MI (1-3 years) and additional high-risk features to ticagrelor 60 mg, 90 mg, or placebo twice daily in addition to aspirin. A total of 4199 patients had no history of coronary stenting at baseline. The primary efficacy outcome (MACE) was the composite of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke. Patients without history of coronary stenting had higher baseline risk of MACE [13.2% vs. 8.0%, adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15-1.73, in the placebo arm]. The relative risk reduction in MACE with ticagrelor (pooled doses) was similar in patients without (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68-0.99) and with prior stenting (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75-0.96; P for interaction = 0.76). CONCLUSION: Long-term ticagrelor reduces thrombotic events in patients with prior MI regardless of whether they had prior coronary stenting. These data highlight the benefits of DAPT in prevention of spontaneous atherothrombotic events and indicate that long-term ticagrelor may be considered in high-risk patients with prior MI even if they have not been treated with stenting. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01225562.

Comparison of the Effects of Glucagon-Like Peptide Receptor Agonists and Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors for Prevention of Major Adverse Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have emerged as 2 new classes of antihyperglycemic agents that also reduce cardiovascular risk. The relative benefits in patients with and without established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease for different outcomes with these classes of drugs remain undefined. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and trial-level meta-analysis of GLP1-RA and SGLT2i cardiovascular outcomes trials using the PubMed and EMBASE databases (Excerpta Medica Database). The primary outcomes were the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death (MACE); hospitalization for heart failure; and progression of kidney disease. RESULTS: In total, data from 8 trials and 77 242 patients, 42 920 (55.6%) in GLP1-RA trials, and 34 322 (44.4%) in SGLT2i trials, were included. Both drug classes reduced MACE in a similar magnitude with GLP1-RA reducing the risk by 12% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.84-0.94; P<0.001) and SGLT2i by 11% (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.96; P=0.001). For both drug classes, this treatment effect was restricted to a 14% reduction in those with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93; P=0.002), whereas no effect was seen in patients without established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.87-1.19; P=0.81; P interaction, 0.028). SGLT2i reduced hospitalization for heart failure by 31% (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.61-0.79; P<0.001), whereas GLP1-RA did not have a significant effect (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83-1.04; P=0.20). Both GLP1-RA (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.75-0.89; P<0.001) and SGLT2i (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.58-0.67; P<0.001) reduced the risk of progression of kidney disease including macroalbuminuria, but only SGLT2i reduced the risk of worsening estimated glomerular filtration rate, end-stage kidney disease, or renal death (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.48-0.64; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In trials reported to date, GLP1-RA and SGLT2i reduce atherosclerotic MACE to a similar degree in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, whereas SGLT2i have a more marked effect on preventing hospitalization for heart failure and progression of kidney disease. Their distinct clinical benefit profiles should be considered in the decision-making process when treating patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Effect of Dapagliflozin on Heart Failure and Mortality in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

BACKGROUND: In DECLARE-TIMI 58 (Dapagliflozin Effect on Cardiovascular Events-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 58), the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduced the composite end point of cardiovascular death/hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) in a broad population of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, the impact of baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) on the clinical benefit of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition is unknown. METHODS: In the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial, baseline heart failure (HF) status was collected from all patients, and EF was collected when available. HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) was defined as EF <45%. Outcomes of interest were the composite of cardiovascular death/HHF, its components, and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Of 17 160 patients, 671 (3.9%) had HFrEF, 1316 (7.7%) had HF without known reduced EF, and 15 173 (88.4%) had no history of HF at baseline. Dapagliflozin reduced cardiovascular death/HHF more in patients with HFrEF (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.45-0.86]) than in those without HFrEF (HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.76-1.02]; P for interaction=0.046), in whom the treatment effect of dapagliflozin was similar in those with HF without known reduced EF (HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.66-1.17]) and those without HF (HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.74-1.03]). Whereas dapagliflozin reduced HHF both in those with (HR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.43-0.95]) and in those without HFrEF (HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.62-0.92]), it reduced cardiovascular death only in patients with HFrEF (HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.34-0.90]) but not in those without HFrEF (HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.89-1.31]; P for interaction=0.012). Likewise, dapagliflozin reduced all-cause mortality in patients with HFrEF (HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.40-0.88;) but not in those without HFrEF (HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.86-1.10]; P for interaction=0.016). CONCLUSIONS: In the first sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor cardiovascular outcome trial to evaluate patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus stratified by EF, we found that dapagliflozin reduced HHF in patients with and without HFrEF and reduced cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality in patients with HFrEF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01730534.

Dapagliflozin and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Previous Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Sodium glucose transporter-2 inhibitors reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Because of their baseline risk, patients with previous myocardial infarction (MI) may derive even greater benefit from sodium glucose transporter-2 inhibitor therapy. METHODS: DECLARE-TIMI 58 (Dapagliflozin Effect on Cardiovascular Events-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 58) randomized 17 160 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and either established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (n=6974) or multiple risk factors (n=10 186) to dapagliflozin versus placebo. The 2 primary end points were composite of MACE (cardiovascular death, MI, or ischemic stroke) and the composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure. Those with previous MI (n=3584) made up a prespecified subgroup of interest. RESULTS: In patients with previous MI (n=3584), dapagliflozin reduced the relative risk of MACE by 16% and the absolute risk by 2.6% (15.2% versus 17.8%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; P=0.039), whereas there was no effect in patients without previous MI (7.1% versus 7.1%; HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.88-1.13; P=0.97; P for interaction for relative difference=0.11; P for interaction for absolute risk difference=0.048), including in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease but no history of MI (12.6% versus 12.8%; HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.81-1.19). There seemed to be a greater benefit for MACE within 2 years after the last acute event ( P for interaction trend=0.007). The relative risk reductions in cardiovascular death/hospitalization for heart failure were more similar, but the absolute risk reductions tended to be greater: 1.9% (8.6% versus 10.5%; HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65-1.00; P=0.046) and 0.6% (3.9% versus 4.5%; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.00; P=0.055) in patients with and without previous MI, respectively ( P interaction for relative difference=0.69; P interaction for absolute risk difference=0.010). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and previous MI are at high risk of MACE and cardiovascular death/hospitalization for heart failure. Dapagliflozin appears to robustly reduce the risk of both composite outcomes in these patients. Future studies should aim to confirm the large clinical benefits with sodium glucose transporter-2 inhibitors we observed in patients with previous MI. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01730534.

SGLT2 inhibitors for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials.

BACKGROUND: The magnitude of effect of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) on specific cardiovascular and renal outcomes and whether heterogeneity is based on key baseline characteristics remains undefined. METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, placebo-controlled, cardiovascular outcome trials of SGLT2i in patients with type 2 diabetes. We searched PubMed and Embase for trials published up to Sept 24, 2018. Data search and extraction were completed with a standardised data form and any discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Efficacy outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death), the composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalisation for heart failure, and progression of renal disease. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were pooled across trials, and efficacy outcomes were stratified by baseline presence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and degree of renal function. FINDINGS: We included data from three identified trials and 34 322 patients (60·2% with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease), with 3342 major adverse cardiovascular events, 2028 cardiovascular deaths or hospitalisation sfor heart failure events, and 766 renal composite outcomes. SGLT2i reduced major adverse cardiovascular events by 11% (HR 0·89 [95% CI 0·83-0·96], p=0·0014), with benefit only seen in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (0·86 [0·80-0·93]) and not in those without (1·00 [0·87-1·16], p for interaction=0·0501). SGLT2i reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalisation for heart failure by 23% (0·77 [0·71-0·84], p<0·0001), with a similar benefit in patients with and without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and with and without a history of heart failure. SGLT2i reduced the risk of progression of renal disease by 45% (0·55 [0·48-0·64], p<0·0001), with a similar benefit in those with and without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The magnitude of benefit of SGLT2i varied with baseline renal function, with greater reductions in hospitalisations for heart failure (p for interaction=0·0073) and lesser reductions in progression of renal disease (p for interaction=0·0258) in patients with more severe kidney disease at baseline. INTERPRETATION: SGLT2i have moderate benefits on atherosclerotic major adverse cardiovascular events that seem confined to patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. However, they have robust benefits on reducing hospitalisation for heart failure and progression of renal disease regardless of existing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or a history of heart failure. FUNDING: None.

Increased bodyweight and inadequate response to aspirin in individuals with coronary artery disease.

Recent reports have suggested that aspirin effect might be influenced by bodyweight, with decreased efficacy in heavier individuals. We investigated the influence of bodyweight on aspirin pharmacodynamics in two independent datasets of patients taking non-enteric coated aspirin 100 mg QD for coronary artery disease (CAD). In the first dataset, 368 patients had their platelet aggregation assessed using VerifyNow Aspirin and measured in Aspirin Reaction Units (ARU). In the second dataset, 70 patients had serum thromboxane B2 (TXB2) dosage assessed by an ELISA assay and measured in pg/mL. Platelet aggregation was independently associated with bodyweight, with 8.41 (95% CI 1.86-14.97; adjusted p-value = 0.012) increase in ARU for every 10 kg. Furthermore, the rate of non-response to aspirin (defined as ARU ≥ 550) was significantly associated with increased bodyweight (adjusted p-value = 0.007), with OR = 1.23 (95% CI 1.06-1.42) for every 10 kg. Similar results were found considering body mass index (in kg/m2), with 15.5 (95% CI 5.0 to 25.9; adjusted p-value = 0.004) increase in ARU for every 10 kg and non-response OR = 1.43 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.81, adjusted p-value = 0.003) for every 5 kg/m2. Moreover, serum TXB2 was higher in patients weighting more than 70 kg (222.6 ± 62.9 versus 194.9 ± 61.9 pg/mL; adjusted p-value = 0.018). In two different datasets of patients with CAD on non-enteric coated aspirin 100 mg QD, increased bodyweight was independently associated with impaired response to aspirin.

The Use of Oral Beta-Blockers and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes: a Long-Term Follow-Up Study.

BACKGROUND: The role of beta-blockers in patients with acute coronary syndromes is mainly derived from studies including patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Little is known about the use of beta-blockers and associated long-term clinical outcomes in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS). METHODS: We analyzed short- and long-term clinical outcomes of 2921 patients with NSTEACS using or not oral beta-blockers in the first 24 h of the acute coronary syndromes (ACS) presentation. The association between beta-blocker use and mortality was assessed using a propensity score adjusted analysis (N = 1378). RESULTS: Patients starting oral beta-blockers in the first 24 h of hospitalization, compared with patients who did not, had lower rates of in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.74, P = 0.002) and higher mean survival times in the long-term follow-up (11.86±0.4 years vs. 9.92±0.39 years, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The use of beta-blockers in the first 24 h of patients presenting with NSTEACS was associated with better in-hospital and long-term mortality outcomes.

Early versus delayed coronary angiography in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and no ST-segment elevation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Recent randomized controlled trials did not show benefit of early/immediate coronary angiography (CAG) over a delayed/selective strategy in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and no ST-segment elevation. However, whether selected subgroups, specifically those with a high pretest probability of coronary artery disease may benefit from early CAG remains unclear. METHODS: We included all randomized controlled trials that compared a strategy of early/immediate versus delayed/selective CAG in OHCA patients and no ST elevation and had a follow-up of at least 30 days. The primary outcome of interest was all-cause death. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated and pooled across trials. Interaction testing was used to assess for heterogeneity of treatment effects. RESULTS: In total, 1512 patients (67 years, 26% female, 23% prior myocardial infarction) were included from 5 randomized controlled trials. Early/immediate versus delayed/selective CAG was not associated with a statistically significant difference in odds of death (OR 1.12, 95%-CI 0.91-1.38), with similar findings for the composite outcome of all-cause death or neurological deficit (OR 1.10, 95%-CI 0.89-1.36). There was no effect modification for death by age, presence of a shockable initial cardiac rhythm, history of coronary artery disease, presence of an ischemic event as the presumed cause of arrest, or time to return of spontaneous circulation (all P-interaction > 0.10). However, early/immediate CAG tended to be associated with higher odds of death in women (OR 1.52, 95%-CI 1.00-2.31, P = 0.050) than in men (OR 1.04, 95%-CI 0.82-1.33, P = 0.74; P-interaction 0.097). CONCLUSION: In OHCA patients without ST-segment elevation, a strategy of early/immediate versus delayed/selective CAG did not reduce all-cause mortality across major subgroups. However, women tended to have higher odds of death with early CAG.

Cardiovascular Safety of Azithromycin in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Prespecified Pooled Analysis of the COALITION I and COALITION II Randomized Clinical Trials.

The cardiovascular safety from azithromycin in the treatment of several infectious diseases has been challenged. In this prespecified pooled analysis of 2 multicenter randomized clinical trials, we aimed to assess whether the use of azithromycin might lead to corrected QT (QTc) interval prolongation or clinically relevant ventricular arrhythmias. In the COALITION COVID Brazil I trial, 667 patients admitted with moderate COVID-19 were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine, hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, or standard of care. In the COALITION COVID Brazil II trial, 447 patients with severe COVID-19 were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine alone versus hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin. The principal end point for the present analysis was the composite of death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or ventricular arrhythmias. The addition of azithromycin to hydroxychloroquine did not result in any prolongation of the QTc interval (425.8 ± 3.6 ms vs 427.9 ± 3.9 ms, respectively, mean difference -2.1 ms, 95% confidence interval -12.5 to 8.4 ms, p = 0.70). The combination of azithromycin plus hydroxychloroquine compared with hydroxychloroquine alone did not result in increased risk of the primary end point (proportion of patients with events at 15 days 17.2% vs 16.0%, respectively, hazard ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.49, p = 0.65). In conclusion, in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 already receiving standard-of-care management (including hydroxychloroquine), the addition of azithromycin did not result in the prolongation of the QTc interval or increase in cardiovascular adverse events. Because azithromycin is among the most commonly prescribed antimicrobial agents, our results may inform clinical practice. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04322123, NCT04321278.

Long-term outcomes among stable post-acute myocardial infarction patients living in rural versus urban areas: insights from the prospective, observational TIGRIS registry.

BACKGROUND: Insights on the differences in clinical outcomes, quality of life (QoL) and health resource utilisation (HRU) with different levels of care available to post-acute myocardial infarction (AMI) populations in rural and urban settings are limited. METHODS: The long-Term rIsk, clinical manaGement, and healthcare Resource utilisation of stable coronary artery dISease (TIGRIS), a prospective, observational registry, enrolled 8452 patients aged ≥50 years 1-3 years post-AMI from June 2013 to November 2014 from 24 countries in Asia Pacific/Australia, Europe, North America and South America. Differences in QoL (measured using the EuroQol Research Foundation instrument) and HRU between patients in rural and urban settings were evaluated in this post hoc analysis. The incidence of clinical endpoints (cardiovascular (CV) death, AMI, unstable angina with urgent revascularisation and stroke; bleeding; and all-cause mortality) was analysed. Data were collected at baseline and every 6 months for 24 months. RESULTS: There were fewer hospitalisations and visits to general practitioners (GPs) and cardiologists in the rural versus urban populations (adjusted event rate ratio (ERR)=0.90 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.00, p=0.04); ERR=0.84 (95% CI, 0.78 to 0.92, p<0.001); ERR=0.86 (95% CI, 0.81 to 0.92, p<0.001), respectively). No statistically significant differences were observed between rural and urban populations in all-cause death, AMI, unstable angina with urgent revascularisation, CV death, stroke, major bleeding events and health-related QoL. The adjusted incidence rate ratio was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.74 to 1.15) for the composite of CV death, AMI and stroke. CONCLUSIONS: Living in rural areas was associated with fewer GP/cardiologist visits and hospitalisations; no significant differences in clinical outcomes and QoL were observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01866904.