Comparative Effectiveness of Aspirin Dosing in Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate dose of aspirin to lower the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke and to minimize major bleeding in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is a subject of controversy. METHODS: Using an open-label, pragmatic design, we randomly assigned patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease to a strategy of 81 mg or 325 mg of aspirin per day. The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of death from any cause, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke, assessed in a time-to-event analysis. The primary safety outcome was hospitalization for major bleeding, also assessed in a time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: A total of 15,076 patients were followed for a median of 26.2 months (interquartile range [IQR], 19.0 to 34.9). Before randomization, 13,537 (96.0% of those with available information on previous aspirin use) were already taking aspirin, and 85.3% of these patients were previously taking 81 mg of daily aspirin. Death, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke occurred in 590 patients (estimated percentage, 7.28%) in the 81-mg group and 569 patients (estimated percentage, 7.51%) in the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.14). Hospitalization for major bleeding occurred in 53 patients (estimated percentage, 0.63%) in the 81-mg group and 44 patients (estimated percentage, 0.60%) in the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.77). Patients assigned to 325 mg had a higher incidence of dose switching than those assigned to 81 mg (41.6% vs. 7.1%) and fewer median days of exposure to the assigned dose (434 days [IQR, 139 to 737] vs. 650 days [IQR, 415 to 922]). CONCLUSIONS: In this pragmatic trial involving patients with established cardiovascular disease, there was substantial dose switching to 81 mg of daily aspirin and no significant differences in cardiovascular events or major bleeding between patients assigned to 81 mg and those assigned to 325 mg of aspirin daily. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; ADAPTABLE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02697916.).

Achievement of LDL-C <55 mg/dL among US adults: Findings from the cvMOBIUS2 registry.

BACKGROUND: Reflecting clinical trial data showing improved outcomes with lower LDL-C levels, guidelines across the globe are increasingly recommending a goal of LDL-C <55 mg/dL in persons with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). What proportion of patients with ASCVD are already meeting those goals in the US remains understudied. METHODS: Using electronic health record data from 8 large US health systems, we evaluated lipid-lowering therapy (LLT), LDL-C levels, and factors associated with an LDL-C <55 mg/dL in persons with ASCVD treated between 1/1/2021-12/31/2021. Multivariable modeling was used to evaluate factors associated with achievement of an LDL-C <55 mg/dL. RESULTS: Among 167,899 eligible patients, 22.6% (38,016) had an LDL-C <55 mg/dL. While 76.1% of individuals overall were on a statin, only 38.2% were on a high-intensity statin, 5.9% were on ezetimibe, and 1.7% were on a PCSK9i monoclonal antibody (mAb). Factors associated with lower likelihood of achieving an LDL-C <55 mg/dL included: younger age (odds ratio [OR] 0.91 per 10y), female sex (OR 0.69), Black race (OR 0.76), and noncoronary artery disease forms of ASCVD including peripheral artery disease (OR 0.72) and cerebrovascular disease (OR 0.85), while high-intensity statin use was associated with increased odds of LDL-C <55 mg/dL (OR 1.55). Combination therapy (statin+ezetimibe or statin+PCSK9i mAb) was rare (4.4% and 0.5%, respectively) and was associated with higher odds of an LDL-C <55 mg/dL (OR 1.39 and 3.13, respectively). CONCLUSION: Less than a quarter of US patients with ASCVD in community practice are already achieving an LDL-C <55 mg/dL. Marked increases in utilization of both high intensity statins and combination therapy with non-statin therapy will be needed to achieve LDL-C levels <55 mg/dL at the population level in secondary prevention.

Novel Tissue Factor Inhibition for Thromboprophylaxis in COVID-19: Primary Results of the ASPEN-COVID-19 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Thrombo-inflammation is central to COVID-19-associated coagulopathy. TF (tissue factor), a driver of disordered coagulation and inflammation in viral infections, may be a therapeutic target in COVID-19. The safety and efficacy of the novel TF inhibitor rNAPc2 (recombinant nematode anticoagulation protein c2) in COVID-19 are unknown. METHODS: ASPEN-COVID-19 was an international, randomized, open-label, active comparator clinical trial with blinded end point adjudication. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer levels were randomized 1:1:2 to lower or higher dose rNAPc2 on days 1, 3, and 5 followed by heparin on day 8 or to heparin per local standard of care. In comparisons of the pooled rNAPc2 versus heparin groups, the primary safety end point was major or nonmajor clinically relevant International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis bleeding through day 8. The primary efficacy end point was proportional change in D-dimer concentration from baseline to day 8, or discharge if before day 8. Patients were followed for 30 days. RESULTS: Among 160 randomized patients, median age was 54 years, 43.1% were female, and 38.8% had severe baseline COVID-19. There were no significant differences between rNAPc2 and heparin in bleeding or other safety events. Overall, median change in D-dimer was -16.8% (interquartile range, -45.7 to 36.8; P=0.41) with rNAPc2 treatment and -11.2% (-36.0 to 34.4; P=0.91) with heparin (Pintergroup=0.47). In prespecified analyses, in severely ill patients, D-dimer levels tended to increase more within the heparin (median, 29.0% [-14.9 to 145.2]; P=0.02) than the rNAPc2 group (median, 25.9% [-49.1 to 136.4]; P=0.14; Pintergroup=0.96); in mildly ill patients, D-dimer levels were reduced within each group with a numerically greater reduction with rNAPc2 versus heparin (rNAPc2 median, -32.7% [-44.7 to 4.3]; P=0.007 and heparin median, -16.8% [-36.0 to 0.5]; P=0.008, Pintergroup=0.34). CONCLUSIONS: rNAPc2 treatment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was well tolerated without excess bleeding or serious adverse events but did not significantly reduce D-dimer more than heparin at day 8. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04655586.

Comparison of the effectiveness and safety of 2 aspirin doses in secondary prevention of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease: A subgroup analysis of ADAPTABLE.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with established cardiovascular disease, the ADAPTABLE trial found no significant differences in cardiovascular events and bleeding rates between 81 mg and 325 mg of aspirin (ASA) daily. In this secondary analysis from the ADAPTABLE trial, we studied the effectiveness and safety of ASA dosing in patients with a history of chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS: ADAPTABLE participants were stratified based on the presence or absence of CKD, defined using ICD-9/10-CM codes. Within the CKD group, we compared outcomes between patients taking ASA 81 mg and 325 mg. The primary effectiveness outcome was defined as a composite of all cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke and the primary safety outcome was hospitalization for major bleeding. Adjusted Cox proportional hazard models were utilized to report differences between the groups. RESULTS: After excluding 414 (2.7%) patients due to missing medical history, a total of 14,662 patients were included from the ADAPTABLE cohort, of whom 2,648 (18%) patients had CKD. Patients with CKD were older (median age 69.4 vs 67.1 years; P < .0001) and less likely to be white (71.5% vs 81.7%; P < .0001) when compared to those without CKD. At a median follow-up of 26.2 months, CKD was associated with an increased risk of both the primary effectiveness outcome (adjusted HR 1.79 [1.57, 2.05] P < .001 and the primary safety outcome (adjusted HR 4.64 (2.98, 7.21), P < .001 and P < .05, respectively) regardless of ASA dose. There was no significant difference in effectiveness (adjusted HR 1.01 95% CI 0.82, 1.23; P = .95) or safety (adjusted HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.52, 1.64; P = .79) between ASA groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CKD were more likely than those without CKD to have adverse cardiovascular events or death and were also more likely to have major bleeding requiring hospitalization. However, there was no association between ASA dose and study outcomes among these patients with CKD.

To Anticoagulate or Not to Anticoagulate in COVID-19: Lessons after 2 Years.

A hypercoagulable state associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been well documented and is believed to be strongly supported by a proinflammatory state. The hypercoagulable state in turn results in increased incidence of arterial and venous thromboembolism (VTE) seen in hospitalized COVID-19 when compared with hospitalized non-COVID-19 patient cohorts. Moreover, patients with arterial or VTE and COVID-19 have higher mortality compared with COVID-19 patients without arterial or VTE. Prevention of arterial or VTE thus remains an essential question in the management of COVID-19 patients, especially because of high rates of reported microvascular and macrovascular thrombosis. This has prompted multiple randomized control trials (RCTs) evaluating different anticoagulation strategies in COVID-19 patients at various stages of the disease. Herein, we review findings from RCTs in the past 2 years of antithrombotic therapy in critically ill hospitalized patients, noncritically ill hospitalized patients, patients postdischarge from the hospital, and outpatients. RCTs in critically ill patients demonstrated therapeutic dose anticoagulation does not improve outcomes and has more bleeding than prophylaxis dose anticoagulant in these patients. Trials in noncritically ill hospitalized patients showed a therapeutic dose anticoagulation with a heparin formulation might improve clinical outcomes. Anticoagulation with a direct oral anticoagulant posthospital discharge may improve outcomes, although there is a large RCT in progress. Nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients have an insufficient burden of events to be candidates for antithrombotic therapy. Anticoagulation in pregnant and lactating patients with COVID-19, as well as antiplatelet therapy for COVID-19, is also reviewed.

Clinician engagement in the ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) trial.

BACKGROUND: ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) is a pragmatic clinical trial examining high-dose versus low-dose aspirin among patients with cardiovascular disease. ADAPTABLE is leveraging novel approaches for clinical trial conduct to expedite study completion and reduce costs. One pivotal aspect of the trial conduct is maximizing clinician engagement. METHODS/RESULTS: Clinician engagement can be diminished by barriers including time limitations, insufficient research infrastructure, lack of research training, inadequate compensation for research activities, and clinician beliefs. We used several key approaches to boost clinician engagement such as empowering clinician champions, including a variety of clinicians, nurses and advanced practice providers, periodic newsletters and coordinated team celebrations, and deploying novel technological solutions. Specifically, some centers generated electronic health records-based best practice advisories and research dashboards. Future large pragmatic trials will benefit from standardization of the various clinician engagement strategies especially studies leveraging electronic health records-based approaches like research dashboards. Financial or academic "credit" for clinician engagement in clinical research may boost participation rates in clinical studies. CONCLUSION: Maximizing clinician engagement is important for the success of clinical trials; the strategies employed in the ADAPTABLE trial may serve as a template for future pragmatic studies.

Incidence, predictors and impact of stroke on mortality among patients with acute coronary syndromes following percutaneous coronary intervention-Results from the PROMETHEUS registry.

BACKGROUND: Stroke represents a potentially calamitous complication among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous intervention (PCI). Data on the distribution of stroke occurrence post-PCI and its impact on mortality are scarce. OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the incidence, predictors and impact of stroke on mortality in ACS patients undergoing PCI. METHODS: A total of 19,914 ACS patients underwent PCI in the PROMETHEUS multicenter observational study. We calculated the cumulative stroke incidence at 30 days and 1 year using the Kaplan Meier method. We also compared the distribution of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and bleeding across time and evaluated their overlap. Predictors of stroke were identified through multivariable Cox-regression. Stroke, MI, and bleeding were assessed as time-updated covariates to estimate how each impacts subsequent mortality. RESULTS: We found that 244 patients had a stroke within 1 year, a cumulative incidence of 1.5%. Previous cerebrovascular disease was the strongest predictor for post-PCI stroke, followed by ST-elevation MI presentation, hypertension, non-ST-elevation MI presentation, smoking, female sex, and age. Mortality risk was significantly higher among those who had a stroke versus those who did not (adjusted HR 4.84, p < .0001). However, the association attenuated over time with a much larger effect in the first 30 days of its occurrence (adjusted HR 17.7; 95% CI: 12.3-25.4, p < .0001) versus beyond 30 days (adjusted HR 1.22; 95% CI: 0.6-2.46, p = .58). CONCLUSIONS: Stroke occurrence within 1 year was not uncommon for ACS patients undergoing PCI. When compared with MI and bleeding, stroke had a substantial impact on mortality that attenuated rapidly over time.

Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing PCI: Insights from the TRANSLATE ACS study.

INTRODUCTION: Concomitant use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) and P2Y12 inhibitors increases bleeding risk. How GPIs are being used with faster onset, higher potency P2Y12 inhibitors are unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 11,781 myocardial infarction (MI) patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at 233 hospitals in the TRANSLATE ACS study (2010-2012). We used propensity matching to compare 6-week major adverse cardiac events (MACE: death, recurrent MI, stroke, or unplanned revascularization) and BARC 2+ bleeding events between patients who did and did not receive planned GPI. Planned and bailout GPI were used in 4,983 (42.2%) and 229 (4.4%) MI patients undergoing PCI, respectively. Patients receiving planned GPI were younger (58 vs. 61 years), more likely to present with STEMI (62.6% vs. 45.4%) or have stent thrombosis (4.2% vs. 2.1%, all P < 0.001) than those without planned GPI use. Planned GPI was used less often with prasugrel/ticagrelor versus clopidogrel (37.1% vs. 43.3%), or when any P2Y12 inhibitor was given >6 hr prior to PCI versus earlier (27.8% vs. 44.4%, both P < 0.01). After propensity matching, planned GPI use was not associated with any difference in MACE (6.4% vs. 5.5% OR 1.18; 95% CI: 0.99-1.57), however, the risk of BARC 2+ bleeding was higher in patients who received planned GPI (11.3% vs. 8.7%; OR 1.34; 95% CI: 1.13-1.59). CONCLUSION: Planned GPI use as reported by practicing physicians was prevalent between 2010 and 2012 and was associated with increased risk of bleeding but not lower MACE.

The prevalence, predictors and outcomes of guideline-directed medical therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing PCI, an analysis from the PROMETHEUS registry.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence, predictors and associations between guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and clinical outcomes in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from eight academic centers in the United States. BACKGROUND: Evidence for GDMT in patients with AMI comes from randomized controlled trials. The use of GDMT in clinical practice is unknown in this setting. METHODS: PROMETHEUS is a multicenter observational registry comprising 19,914 patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing PCI. Patients with AMI were divided into two groups based on the prescription of GDMT or not (non-GDMT) at discharge. GDMT was defined according to American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) class I recommendations, specifically, dual antiplatelet therapy, statin and beta-blocker for all AMI patients, and additional ACEI/ARB in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 40%, hypertension, diabetes mellitus (DM) or chronic kidney disease (CKD). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) defined as a composite of all-cause death, MI, stroke or unplanned target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 1 year. RESULTS: Out of 4,834 patients with AMI, 3,356 (69.4%) patients were discharged on GDMT. Patients receiving GDMT were more often younger and male. Compared with non-GDMT patients, GDMT patients had a significantly lower frequency of comorbidities. Predictors of greater GDMT prescription at discharge were ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), and increased body mass index (BMI), whereas hypertension, prior PCI, anemia and CKD were associated with less GDMT prescription. At 1 year, the use of GDMT was associated with a significantly lower incidence of MACE (13.7% vs. 22.5%; adjusted HR 0.68; 95%CI 0.58-0.80; P < 0.001), death (3.7% vs. 9.4%; adjusted HR 0.61; 95%CI 0.46-0.80; P < 0.001), and unplanned TVR (8.4% vs. 11.3%; adjusted HR 0.76; 95%CI 0.61-0.96; P = 0.020). However, there were no significant differences in the incidence of MI (4.3% vs. 7.0%; adjusted HR 0.75; 95%CI 0.56-1.01; P = 0.056), stroke (1.5% vs. 2.0%; adjusted HR 0.79; 95%CI 0.47-1.34; P = 0.384) between the two groups. CONCLUSION: In a contemporary practice setting in the United States, GDMT was utilized in just over two-thirds of AMI patients undergoing PCI. Predictors of GDMT prescription at discharge included STEMI, BMI and absence of hypertension, CKD, anemia or prior PCI. Use of GDMT was associated with significantly lower risk of 1-year MACE and mortality.

Associations between use of prasugrel vs clopidogrel and outcomes by type of acute coronary syndrome: an analysis from the PROMETHEUS registry.

We sought to investigate the utilization of prasugrel and its association with outcomes relative to clopidogrel in three typical subgroups of ACS in a real-world setting. Prasugrel is superior to clopidogrel for reducing risk of ischemic events in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), but is associated with an increased risk of bleeding complications. PROMETHEUS was a retrospective multicenter observational study of 19,913 ACS patients undergoing PCI from 8 centers in the United States between 2010 and 2013. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke or unplanned revascularization. The study cohort included 3285 (16.5%) patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 5412 (27.2%) patients with NSTEMI and 11,216 (56.3%) patients with unstable angina (UA). The frequency of prasugrel use at discharge was highest in STEMI and lowest in UA patients, 27.3% versus 22.2% versus 18.9% (p < 0.001). Use of prasugrel vs clopidogrel was associated with a lower rate of MACE in STEMI, NSTEMI, or UA at 1 year, but the differences were attenuated for all groups except for patients with UA (adjusted HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.94, p = 0.006) after propensity adjusted analysis. After adjustment, there was no difference in bleeding risk between prasugrel and clopidogrel for all groups at 1 year. STEMI patients were more likely to receive prasugrel compared to NSTEMI and UA patients. Prasugrel was associated with reduced adverse outcomes compared with clopidogrel in unadjusted analyses, findings that were largely attenuated upon adjustment and suggest preferential use of prasugrel in low vs high risk patients.

The safety and effectiveness of adenosine diphosphate receptor inhibitor pretreatment among acute myocardial infarction patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention in community practice: Insights from the TRANSLATE-ACS study.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the optimal timing of adenosine diphosphate (ADP) receptor inhibitor pretreatment prior to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among acute myocardial infarction (MI) patients. BACKGROUND: The role of ADP receptor inhibitor pretreatment in this population is unclear. METHODS: A total of 9,251 ADP receptor inhibitor-naïve MI patients undergoing PCI at 229 TRANSLATE-ACS sites were evaluated. Adjusted risks of in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and major bleeding were compared among patients with and without pretreatment using inverse probability-weighted propensity adjustment. RESULTS: Of 9,251 patients treated with either prasugrel or clopidogrel during the index MI hospitalization, 4,056 (44%) received pretreatment (ST-segment elevation MI [STEMI] 54.9%, non-STEMI 45.1%); pretreatment was used more commonly among those receiving clopidogrel than prasugrel (52% vs. 20%, P < 0.0001). MACE risks were not significantly different between patients with and without pretreatment (clopidogrel 2.1% vs. 2.2%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.43; prasugrel 2.1% vs. 2.3%, adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.82, 95% CI 0.42-1.60). No differences in major bleeding were observed among those receiving versus not receiving pretreatment (clopidogrel 3.1% vs. 3.5%, adjusted HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65-1.36; prasugrel 2.5% vs. 2.7%, adjusted OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.42-2.02); results were similar when stratified by MI type. CONCLUSIONS: ADP receptor inhibitor pretreatment (44%) is commonly used among acute MI patients undergoing PCI in contemporary practice, but no significant differences were found in in-hospital MACE and/or bleeding risks between patients receiving versus not receiving pretreatment, regardless of ADP receptor inhibitor type.

Unplanned Inpatient and Observation Rehospitalizations After Acute Myocardial Infarction: Insights From the Treatment With Adenosine Diphosphate Receptor Inhibitors: Longitudinal Assessment of Treatment Patterns and Events After Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRANSLATE-ACS) Study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies examining early readmission after acute myocardial infarction have focused exclusively on inpatient readmissions. However, from a patient's perspective, any unplanned inpatient or observation rehospitalization after acute myocardial infarction represents a significant event; these unplanned rehospitalizations have not been well characterized. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined all patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and discharged alive from 233 hospitals in the Treatment With Adenosine Diphosphate Receptor Inhibitors: Longitudinal Assessment of Treatment Patterns and Events After Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRANSLATE-ACS) study from 2010 to 2012. Our primary outcome was unplanned rehospitalizations (inpatient or observation status) within 30 days after discharge. We identified factors associated with unplanned rehospitalizations using multivariable logistic regression. Among 12 312 patients, 1326 (10.8%) had 1483 unplanned rehospitalizations within 30 days of the index event: 1028 (69.3%) were inpatient readmissions, and 455 (30.7%) were observation stays. The majority of unplanned rehospitalizations (72%) were for cardiovascular reasons. Variation in hospital rates of 30-day unplanned rehospitalization ranged from 5.4% to 20.0%, with a median of 10.7%. After multivariable modeling, the factors most strongly associated with unplanned rehospitalization were baseline quality of life and depression, followed by index hospital length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Early unplanned rehospitalizations are common after acute myocardial infarction, and close to one third were classified as an observation stay. Predischarge and postdischarge assessments of overall, not just cardiovascular, health and strategies to optimize patient functional status may help to reduce unplanned rehospitalizations. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01088503.

Switching of adenosine diphosphate receptor inhibitor after hospital discharge among myocardial infarction patients: Insights from the Treatment with Adenosine Diphosphate Receptor Inhibitors: Longitudinal Assessment of Treatment Patterns and Events after Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRANSLATE-ACS) observational study.

The reasons for postdischarge adenosine diphosphate receptor inhibitor (ADPri) switching among patients with myocardial infarction (MI) are unclear. We sought to describe the incidence and patterns of postdischarge ADPri switching among patients with acute MI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: We used TRANSLATE-ACS (2010-2012) data to assess postdischarge ADPri switching among 8,672 MI patients discharged after percutaneous coronary intervention who remained on ADPri therapy 1 year post-MI. We examined patient-reported reasons for switching, GUSTO moderate or severe bleeding, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), and definite stent thrombosis events around the time of the switch. RESULTS: Among patients still on ADPri therapy 1 year post-MI, 663 (7.6%) switched ADPri during that year. Switching occurred at a median of 50 days postdischarge and most frequently in patients discharged on ticagrelor (64/226; 28.3%), followed by prasugrel (383/2,489; 15.4%) and clopidogrel (216/5,957; 3.6%) (P < .001). Among patients discharged on prasugrel, 97.3% of switches were to clopidogrel and 87.5% of ticagrelor switches were to clopidogrel; both of these groups most often cited cost as a reason for switching (43.6% and 39.1%, respectively), whereas 60.7% who switched from clopidogrel cited physician decision as a reason. In the 7 days preceding the switch from clopidogrel, 40 (18.5%) had a MACE and 12 (5.6%) had a definite stent thrombosis event, whereas that from prasugrel or ticagrelor, a GUSTO moderate or severe bleeding event occurred in 1 (0.3%) and 0 patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Postdischarge ADPri switching occurred infrequently within the first year post-MI and uncommonly was associated with MACEs or bleeding events.

Association of measured platelet reactivity with changes in P2Y12 receptor inhibitor therapy and outcomes after myocardial infarction: Insights into routine clinical practice from the TReatment with ADP receptor iNhibitorS: Longitudinal Assessment of Treatment Patterns and Events after Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRANSLATE-ACS) study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the use of platelet function testing to guide choice of P2Y12 receptor inhibitor therapy in routine clinical practice. METHODS: We studied 671 myocardial infarction (MI) patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention in the TRANSLATE-ACS Registry who had VerifyNow platelet function testing performed while on clopidogrel treatment during their index hospitalization (April 2010-October 2012). RESULTS: High platelet reactivity (>208 platelet reactivity units [PRU]) was present in 261 (38.9%) patients. Clopidogrel was switched in-hospital to prasugrel in 80 (30.7%) patients with high platelet reactivity and 18 (4.4%) patients with therapeutic platelet reactivity (≤208 PRU). Among high platelet reactivity patients, switch to prasugrel was associated with lower major adverse cardiovascular events (death, MI, stroke, or unplanned revascularization) at 1year (10.0% vs 22.7%, P=.02; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.39, 95% CI 0.18-0.85, P=.02) and no significant difference in Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2 or higher bleeding (23.8% vs 22.1%, P=.77; adjusted OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.48-1.7, P=.77) compared with patients continued on clopidogrel. No significant differences in major adverse cardiovascular event (22.2% vs 12.8%, P=.25; adjusted OR 1.8, 95% CI 0.47-7.3, P=.38) or bleeding (22.2% vs 19.4%, P=.77; adjusted OR 1.3, 95% CI 0.27-6.8, P=.72) were observed among therapeutic platelet reactivity patients between switching and continuation on clopidogrel. CONCLUSIONS: Only one-third of percutaneous coronary intervention-treated MI patients with high on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity were switched to a more potent P2Y12 receptor inhibitor. Intensification of antiplatelet therapy was associated with lower risk of ischemic events at 1year among HPR patients.

Association of Discharge Aspirin Dose With Outcomes After Acute Myocardial Infarction: Insights From the Treatment with ADP Receptor Inhibitors: Longitudinal Assessment of Treatment Patterns and Events after Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRANSLATE-ACS) Study.

BACKGROUND: Aspirin is the most widely used antiplatelet drug postmyocardial infarction, yet its optimal maintenance dose after percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting remains uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared outcomes of 10 213 patients with myocardial infarction who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and were discharged on dual-antiplatelet therapy at 228 US hospitals in the Treatment with ADP Receptor Inhibitors: Longitudinal Assessment of Treatment Patterns and Events after Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRANSLATE-ACS) study from 2010 to 2012. Major adverse cardiovascular events and bleeding within 6 months postdischarge were compared between high-dose (325 mg) and low-dose aspirin (81 mg) by using regression models with inverse probability-weighted propensity adjustment. Overall, 6387 patients (63%) received high-dose aspirin at discharge. Major adverse cardiovascular events risk was not significantly different between groups (high versus low: unadjusted 8.2% versus 9.2%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.17). High-dose aspirin use was associated with greater risk of any Bleeding Academic Research Consortium-defined bleeding events (unadjusted 24.2% versus 22.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.33), driven mostly by minor Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 1 or 2 bleeding events not requiring hospitalization (unadjusted 21.4% versus 19.5%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.34). Bleeding events requiring hospitalization were similar by aspirin dosing groups (unadjusted 2.8% versus 3.2%, adjusted odds ratio, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.70). Similar associations were observed in landmark analyses accounting for aspirin dosing change over time, and across subgroup analyses by age, sex, baseline aspirin use, and type of ADP receptor inhibitor (clopidogrel versus prasugrel/ticagrelor). CONCLUSIONS: Among percutaneous coronary intervention-treated patients with myocardial infarction, high-maintenance-dose aspirin was associated with similar rates of major adverse cardiovascular events, but a greater risk of minor bleeding than those discharged on low-dose aspirin.

"Real-World" Comparison of Prasugrel With Ticagrelor in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: The 30-day clinical outcomes with prasugrel or ticagrelor were compared using a US payer database in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND: Prasugrel and ticagrelor demonstrated superior efficacy with increased non-coronary artery bypass graft major bleeding compared with clopidogrel in randomized clinical trials. No direct randomized or observational studies have compared clinical outcomes between prasugrel and ticagrelor. METHODS: Patients hospitalized for ACS-PCI between August 1, 2011 and April 30, 2013 and prescribed prasugrel or ticagrelor were selected. Drug treatment cohorts were propensity matched based upon demographic and clinical characteristics. The primary objective compared 30-day net adverse clinical events (NACE) in prasugrel- and ticagrelor-treated patients using a prespecified 20% noninferiority margin. Secondary objectives included comparisons of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and major bleeding. RESULTS: Data were available for 16,098 patients (prasugrel, n = 13,134; ticagrelor, n = 2,964). In unmatched cohorts, prasugrel-treated patients were younger with fewer comorbidities than ticagrelor-treated patients, and 30-day NACE rates were 5.6 and 9.3%, respectively (P < 0.001). Following propensity matching, NACE was noninferior (P < 0.001) and 22% lower in prasugrel-treated than in ticagrelor-treated patients (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.94). A 30-day adjusted MACE (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.64-0.98) and major bleeding (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45-0.95) were also lower in prasugrel-treated patients compared with ticagrelor-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this "real-world," retrospective, observational study, physicians appear to preferentially use prasugrel in younger patients with lower risk of bleeding or comorbidities compared with ticagrelor. Following adjustment, clinical outcomes associated with prasugrel use appear as good, if not better, than those associated with ticagrelor in ACS-PCI patients. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Contemporary use of platelet function and pharmacogenomic testing among patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Although platelet function and pharmacogenomic testing have been studied in clinical trials, their adoption into contemporary practice is unknown. METHODS: We studied patterns of platelet function and pharmacogenomic testing among 10,048 patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention at 226 US hospitals in the TRANSLATE-ACS observational study between April 2010 and October 2012, excluding those receiving research protocol-mandated testing. Inverse probability-weighted propensity adjustment was used to compare 1-year bleeding and major adverse cardiac event risks between patients with and without testing. RESULTS: Overall, 337 (3.4%) patients underwent predischarge platelet function testing, whereas 85 (0.9%) underwent pharmacogenomic testing; 82% and 93% of hospitals never performed any platelet function or pharmacogenomic testing, respectively. Patients undergoing testing were more likely to be on an adenosine diphosphate receptor inhibitor preadmission or to have percutaneous coronary intervention of a previously treated lesion. Tested patients were more likely than nontested patients to be switched from clopidogrel to prasugrel/ticagrelor (25.7% vs 9.7%, P < .001) and were more likely to be on prasugrel/ticagrelor 6 months postdischarge (33.8% vs 25.1%, P < .001). No significant differences in 1-year bleeding and major adverse cardiac event risks were observed between tested and nontested patients (adjusted hazard ratios 1.06 [95% CI 0.68-1.65] and 1.21 [95% CI 0.94-1.54], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Platelet function and pharmacogenomic testing are rarely performed in contemporary myocardial infarction patients in the United States. When tested, patients were more likely to be treated with higher-potency adenosine diphosphate receptor inhibitors, yet no significant differences in longitudinal outcomes were observed.

Characteristics and Predictors of Apparent Treatment-Resistant Hypertension in Real-World Populations Using Electronic Health Record-Based Data.

BACKGROUND: Apparent treatment-resistant hypertension (aTRH) is defined as uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) despite using ≥3 antihypertensive classes or controlled BP while using ≥4 antihypertensive classes. Patients with aTRH have a higher risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes compared with patients with controlled hypertension (HTN). Although there have been prior reports on the prevalence, characteristics, and predictors of aTRH, these have been broadly derived from smaller datasets, randomized controlled trials, or closed healthcare systems. METHODS: We extracted patients with HTN defined by ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes during 1/1/2015-12/31/2018, from 2 large electronic health record databases: the OneFlorida Data Trust (n = 223,384) and Research Action for Health Network (REACHnet) (n = 175,229). We applied our previously validated aTRH and stable controlled HTN computable phenotype algorithms and performed univariate and multivariate analyses to identify the prevalence, characteristics, and predictors of aTRH in these populations. RESULTS: The prevalence of aTRH among patients with HTN in OneFlorida (16.7%) and REACHnet (11.3%) was similar to prior reports. Both populations had a significantly higher proportion of Black patients with aTRH compared with those with stable controlled HTN. aTRH in both populations shared similar significant predictors, including Black race, diabetes, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, cardiomegaly, and higher body mass index. In both populations, aTRH was significantly associated with similar comorbidities, when compared with stable controlled HTN. CONCLUSIONS: In 2 large, diverse real-world populations, we observed similar comorbidities and predictors of aTRH as prior studies. In the future, these results may be used to improve healthcare professionals' understanding of aTRH predictors and associated comorbidities.

Platelet FcγRIIa as a Marker of Cardiovascular Risk After Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: A previous single-center study of patients with myocardial infarction (MI) showed that platelet FcγRIIa (pFCG) can distinguish patients at higher and lower risk of subsequent MI, stroke, and death. OBJECTIVES: The authors performed an 800-patient 25-center study to validate the prognostic implications of pFCG. METHODS: Patients with type 1 MI (ST-segment elevation and non-ST-segment elevation) were enrolled in a prospective noninterventional trial during their index hospitalization. Enrolled patients had at least 2 of the following characteristics: age ≥65 years, multivessel coronary artery disease, previous MI, chronic kidney disease, or diabetes mellitus. Flow cytometry was used to quantify pFCG at a core laboratory. A predefined threshold was used to identify high and low pFCG. Patients were queried every 6 months by telephone with a standardized questionnaire. Events were confirmed by review of medical records. RESULTS: Treatment with antithrombotic therapy (aspirin, P2Y12 inhibitors, and anticoagulants) was similar in patients with high and low pFCG. The primary composite endpoint (MI, stroke, death) occurred more frequently in patients with high pFCG (HR: 2.09; 95% CI: 1.34-3.26; P = 0.001). Among individual components of the composite, both death (HR: 2.57; 95% CI: 1.50-4.40; P = 0.001) and MI (HR: 3.24; 95% CI: 1.64-6.37; P = 0.001) were more frequent in patients with high pFCG. CONCLUSIONS: Quantifying pFCG identifies patients at higher and lower risk of subsequent cardiovascular events. This prognostic information will be useful in clinical decisions regarding the intensity and duration of antiplatelet therapy. (Assessment of Individual Risk of Cardiovascular Events by Platelet FcγRIIa; NCT05175261).