Apolipoprotein A1 Infusions and Cardiovascular Outcomes after Acute Myocardial Infarction.

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

Phase 3 Trial of Interleukin-1 Trap Rilonacept in Recurrent Pericarditis.

BACKGROUND: Interleukin-1 has been implicated as a mediator of recurrent pericarditis. The efficacy and safety of rilonacept, an interleukin-1α and interleukin-1ß cytokine trap, were studied previously in a phase 2 trial involving patients with recurrent pericarditis. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3 multicenter, double-blind, event-driven, randomized-withdrawal trial of rilonacept in patients with acute symptoms of recurrent pericarditis (as assessed on a patient-reported scale) and systemic inflammation (as shown by an elevated C-reactive protein [CRP] level). Patients presenting with pericarditis recurrence while receiving standard therapy were enrolled in a 12-week run-in period, during which rilonacept was initiated and background medications were discontinued. Patients who had a clinical response (i.e., met prespecified response criteria) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive continued rilonacept monotherapy or placebo, administered subcutaneously once weekly. The primary efficacy end point, assessed with a Cox proportional-hazards model, was the time to the first pericarditis recurrence. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 86 patients with pericarditis pain and an elevated CRP level were enrolled in the run-in period. During the run-in period, the median time to resolution or near-resolution of pain was 5 days, and the median time to normalization of the CRP level was 7 days. A total of 61 patients underwent randomization. During the randomized-withdrawal period, there were too few recurrence events in the rilonacept group to allow for the median time to the first adjudicated recurrence to be calculated; the median time to the first adjudicated recurrence in the placebo group was 8.6 weeks (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.0 to 11.7; hazard ratio in a Cox proportional-hazards model, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.18; P<0.001 by the log-rank test). During this period, 2 of 30 patients (7%) in the rilonacept group had a pericarditis recurrence, as compared with 23 of 31 patients (74%) in the placebo group. In the run-in period, 4 patients had adverse events leading to the discontinuation of rilonacept therapy. The most common adverse events with rilonacept were injection-site reactions and upper respiratory tract infections. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with recurrent pericarditis, rilonacept led to rapid resolution of recurrent pericarditis episodes and to a significantly lower risk of pericarditis recurrence than placebo. (Funded by Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals; RHAPSODY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03737110.).

Antithrombotic therapies in aortic and peripheral arterial diseases in 2021: a consensus document from the ESC working group on aorta and peripheral vascular diseases, the ESC working group on thrombosis, and the ESC working group on cardiovascular pharmacotherapy.

The aim of this collaborative document is to provide an update for clinicians on best antithrombotic strategies in patients with aortic and/or peripheral arterial diseases. Antithrombotic therapy is a pillar of optimal medical treatment for these patients at very high cardiovascular risk. While the number of trials on antithrombotic therapies in patients with aortic or peripheral arterial diseases is substantially smaller than for those with coronary artery disease, recent evidence deserves to be incorporated into clinical practice. In the absence of specific indications for chronic oral anticoagulation due to concomitant cardiovascular disease, a single antiplatelet agent is the basis for long-term antithrombotic treatment in patients with aortic or peripheral arterial diseases. Its association with another antiplatelet agent or low-dose anticoagulants will be discussed, based on patient's ischaemic and bleeding risk as well therapeutic paths (e.g. endovascular therapy). This consensus document aims to provide a guidance for antithrombotic therapy according to arterial disease localizations and clinical presentation. However, it cannot substitute multidisciplinary team discussions, which are particularly important in patients with uncertain ischaemic/bleeding balance. Importantly, since this balance evolves over time in an individual patient, a regular reassessment of the antithrombotic therapy is of paramount importance.

Lowering cholesterol, blood pressure, or both to prevent cardiovascular events: results of 8.7 years of follow-up of Heart Outcomes Evaluation Prevention (HOPE)-3 study participants.

AIMS: Rosuvastatin (10 mg per day) compared with placebo reduced major adverse cardiovascular (CV) events by 24% in 12 705 participants at intermediate CV risk after 5.6 years. There was no benefit of blood pressure (BP) lowering treatment in the overall group, but a reduction in events in the third of participants with elevated systolic BP. After cessation of all the trial medications, we examined whether the benefits observed during the active treatment phase were sustained, enhanced, or attenuated. METHODS AND RESULTS: After the randomized treatment period (5.6 years), participants were invited to participate in 3.1 further years of observation (total 8.7 years). The first co-primary outcome for the entire length of follow-up was the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or CV death [major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE)-1], and the second was MACE-1 plus resuscitated cardiac arrest, heart failure, or coronary revascularization (MACE-2). In total, 9326 (78%) of 11 994 surviving Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE)-3 subjects consented to participate in extended follow-up. During 3.1 years of post-trial observation (total follow-up of 8.7 years), participants originally randomized to rosuvastatin compared with placebo had a 20% additional reduction in MACE-1 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64-0.99] and a 17% additional reduction in MACE-2 (95% CI 0.68-1.01). Therefore, over the 8.7 years of follow-up, there was a 21% reduction in MACE-1 (95% CI 0.69-0.90, P = 0.005) and 21% reduction in MACE-2 (95% CI 0.69-0.89, P = 0.002). There was no benefit of BP lowering in the overall study either during the active or post-trial observation period, however, a 24% reduction in MACE-1 was observed over 8.7 years. CONCLUSION: The CV benefits of rosuvastatin, and BP lowering in those with elevated systolic BP, compared with placebo continue to accrue for at least 3 years after cessation of randomized treatment in individuals without cardiovascular disease indicating a legacy effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00468923.

The effect of intravenous ferric carboxymaltose on health-related quality of life in iron-deficient patients with acute heart failure: the results of the AFFIRM-AHF study.

AIMS: Patients with heart failure (HF) and iron deficiency experience poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We evaluated the impact of intravenous (IV) ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) vs. placebo on HRQoL for the AFFIRM-AHF population. METHODS AND RESULTS: The baseline 12-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ-12), which was completed for 1058 (535 and 523) patients in the FCM and placebo groups, respectively, was administered prior to randomization and at Weeks 2, 4, 6, 12, 24, 36, and 52. The baseline KCCQ-12 overall summary score (OSS) mean ± standard error was 38.7 ± 0.9 (FCM group) and 37.1 ± 0.8 (placebo group); corresponding values for the clinical summary score (CSS) were 40.9 ± 0.9 and 40.1 ± 0.9. At Week 2, changes in OSS and CSS were similar for FCM and placebo. From Week 4 to Week 24, patients assigned to FCM had significantly greater improvements in OSS and CSS scores vs. placebo [adjusted mean difference (95% confidence interval, CI) at Week 4: 2.9 (0.5-5.3, P = 0.018) for OSS and 2.8 (0.3-5.3, P = 0.029) for CSS; adjusted mean difference (95% CI) at Week 24: 3.0 (0.3-5.6, P = 0.028) for OSS and 2.9 (0.2-5.6, P = 0.035) for CSS]. At Week 52, the treatment effect had attenuated but remained in favour of FCM. CONCLUSION: In iron-deficient patients with HF and left ventricular ejection fraction <50% who had stabilized after an episode of acute HF, treatment with IV FCM, compared with placebo, results in clinically meaningful beneficial effects on HRQoL as early as 4 weeks after treatment initiation, lasting up to Week 24.

Role of Combination Antiplatelet and Anticoagulation Therapy in Diabetes Mellitus and Cardiovascular Disease: Insights From the COMPASS Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with established coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease often have diabetes mellitus. These patients are at high risk of future vascular events. METHODS: In a prespecified analysis of the COMPASS trial (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies), we compared the effects of rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg daily) versus placebo plus aspirin in patients with diabetes mellitus versus without diabetes mellitus in preventing major vascular events. The primary efficacy end point was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Secondary end points included all-cause mortality and all major vascular events (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or major adverse limb events, including amputation). The primary safety end point was a modification of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria for major bleeding. RESULTS: There were 10 341 patients with diabetes mellitus and 17 054 without diabetes mellitus in the overall trial. A consistent and similar relative risk reduction was seen for benefit of rivaroxaban plus aspirin (n=9152) versus placebo plus aspirin (n=9126) in patients both with (n=6922) and without (n=11 356) diabetes mellitus for the primary efficacy end point (hazard ratio, 0.74, P=0.002; and hazard ratio, 0.77, P=0.005, respectively, Pinteraction=0.77) and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.81, P=0.05; and hazard ratio, 0.84, P=0.09, respectively; Pinteraction=0.82). However, although the absolute risk reductions appeared numerically larger in patients with versus without diabetes mellitus, both subgroups derived similar benefit (2.3% versus 1.4% for the primary efficacy end point at 3 years, Gail-Simon qualitative Pinteraction<0.0001; 1.9% versus 0.6% for all-cause mortality, Pinteraction=0.02; 2.7% versus 1.7% for major vascular events, Pinteraction<0.0001). Because the bleeding hazards were similar among patients with and without diabetes mellitus, the prespecified net benefit for rivaroxaban appeared particularly favorable in the patients with diabetes mellitus (2.7% versus 1.0%; Gail-Simon qualitative Pinteraction=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In stable atherosclerosis, the combination of aspirin plus rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily provided a similar relative degree of benefit on coronary, cerebrovascular, and peripheral end points in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Given their higher baseline risk, the absolute benefits appeared larger in those with diabetes mellitus, including a 3-fold greater reduction in all-cause mortality. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01776424.

Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin Versus Aspirin Alone in Patients With Prior Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (COMPASS-PCI).

BACKGROUND: The COMPASS trial (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People using Anticoagulation Strategies) demonstrated that dual pathway inhibition (DPI) with rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg once daily versus aspirin 100 mg once daily reduced the primary major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, as well as, mortality, in patients with chronic coronary syndromes or peripheral arterial disease. Whether this remains true in patients with a history of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unknown. METHODS: In a prespecified subgroup analysis from COMPASS, we examined the outcomes of patients with chronic coronary syndrome with or without a previous PCI treated with DPI versus aspirin alone. Among patients with a previous PCI, we studied the effects of treatment according to the timing of the previous PCI. RESULTS: Of the 27 395 patients in COMPASS, 16 560 patients with a chronic coronary syndrome were randomly assigned to DPI or aspirin, and, of these, 9862 (59.6%) had previous PCI (mean age 68.2±7.8, female 19.4%, diabetes mellitus 35.7%, previous myocardial infarction 74.8%, multivessel PCI 38.0%). Average time from PCI to randomization was 5.4 years (SD, 4.4) and follow-up was 1.98 (SD, 0.72) years. Regardless of previous PCI, DPI versus aspirin produced consistent reductions in MACE (PCI: 4.0% versus 5.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.74 [95% CI, 0.61-0.88]; no PCI: 4.4% versus 5.7%; HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.61-0.94], P-interaction=0.85) and mortality (PCI: 2.5% versus 3.5%; HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.58-0.92]; no PCI: 4.1% versus 5.0%; HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.64-1.00], P-interaction=0.59), but increased major bleeding (PCI: 3.3% versus 2.0%; HR, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.34-2.21]; no PCI: 2.9% versus 1.8%; HR, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.15-2.17], P-interaction=0.68). In those with previous PCI, DPI compared with aspirin produced consistent (robust) reductions in MACE irrespective of time since previous PCI (as early as 1 year and as far as 10 years; P-interaction=0.65), irrespective of having a previous myocardial infarction (P-interaction=0.64). CONCLUSIONS: DPI compared with aspirin produced consistent reductions in MACE and mortality but with increased major bleeding with or without previous PCI. Among those with previous PCI 1 year and beyond, the effects on MACE and mortality were consistent irrespective of time since last PCI. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01776424.

Antihypertensives and Statin Therapy for Primary Stroke Prevention: A Secondary Analysis of the HOPE-3 Trial.

Background and Purpose: The HOPE-3 trial (Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation­3) found that antihypertensive therapy combined with a statin reduced first stroke among people at intermediate cardiovascular risk. We report secondary analyses of stroke outcomes by stroke subtype, predictors, treatment effects in key subgroups. Methods: Using a 2-by-2 factorial design, 12 705 participants from 21 countries with vascular risk factors but without overt cardiovascular disease were randomized to candesartan 16 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg daily or placebo and to rosuvastatin 10 mg daily or placebo. The effect of the interventions on stroke subtypes was assessed. Results: Participants were 66 years old and 46% were women. Baseline blood pressure (138/82 mm Hg) was reduced by 6.0/3.0 mm Hg and LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; 3.3 mmol/L) was reduced by 0.90 mmol/L on active treatment. During 5.6 years of follow-up, 169 strokes occurred (117 ischemic, 29 hemorrhagic, 23 undetermined). Blood pressure lowering did not significantly reduce stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.59­1.08]), ischemic stroke (HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.55­1.15]), hemorrhagic stroke (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.34­1.48]), or strokes of undetermined origin (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.41­2.08]). Rosuvastatin significantly reduced strokes (HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.52­0.95]), with reductions mainly in ischemic stroke (HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.37­0.78]) but did not significantly affect hemorrhagic (HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.59­2.54]) or strokes of undetermined origin (HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 0.57­2.95]). The combination of both interventions compared with double placebo substantially and significantly reduced strokes (HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.36­0.87]) and ischemic strokes (HR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.23­0.72]). Conclusions: Among people at intermediate cardiovascular risk but without overt cardiovascular disease, rosuvastatin 10 mg daily significantly reduced first stroke. Blood pressure lowering combined with rosuvastatin reduced ischemic stroke by 59%. Both therapies are safe and generally well tolerated. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00468923.

Ferric carboxymaltose for iron deficiency at discharge after acute heart failure: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous ferric carboxymaltose has been shown to improve symptoms and quality of life in patients with chronic heart failure and iron deficiency. We aimed to evaluate the effect of ferric carboxymaltose, compared with placebo, on outcomes in patients who were stabilised after an episode of acute heart failure. METHODS: AFFIRM-AHF was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised trial done at 121 sites in Europe, South America, and Singapore. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, were hospitalised for acute heart failure with concomitant iron deficiency (defined as ferritin <100 µg/L, or 100-299 µg/L with transferrin saturation <20%), and had a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 50%. Before hospital discharge, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous ferric carboxymaltose or placebo for up to 24 weeks, dosed according to the extent of iron deficiency. To maintain masking of patients and study personnel, treatments were administered in black syringes by personnel not involved in any study assessments. The primary outcome was a composite of total hospitalisations for heart failure and cardiovascular death up to 52 weeks after randomisation, analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and had at least one post-randomisation data point. Secondary outcomes were the composite of total cardiovascular hospitalisations and cardiovascular death; cardiovascular death; total heart failure hospitalisations; time to first heart failure hospitalisation or cardiovascular death; and days lost due to heart failure hospitalisations or cardiovascular death, all evaluated up to 52 weeks after randomisation. Safety was assessed in all patients for whom study treatment was started. A pre-COVID-19 sensitivity analysis on the primary and secondary outcomes was prespecified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02937454, and has now been completed. FINDINGS: Between March 21, 2017, and July 30, 2019, 1525 patients were screened, of whom 1132 patients were randomly assigned to study groups. Study treatment was started in 1110 patients, and 1108 (558 in the carboxymaltose group and 550 in the placebo group) had at least one post-randomisation value. 293 primary events (57·2 per 100 patient-years) occurred in the ferric carboxymaltose group and 372 (72·5 per 100 patient-years) occurred in the placebo group (rate ratio [RR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·62-1·01, p=0·059). 370 total cardiovascular hospitalisations and cardiovascular deaths occurred in the ferric carboxymaltose group and 451 occurred in the placebo group (RR 0·80, 95% CI 0·64-1·00, p=0·050). There was no difference in cardiovascular death between the two groups (77 [14%] of 558 in the ferric carboxymaltose group vs 78 [14%] in the placebo group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·96, 95% CI 0·70-1·32, p=0·81). 217 total heart failure hospitalisations occurred in the ferric carboxymaltose group and 294 occurred in the placebo group (RR 0·74; 95% CI 0·58-0·94, p=0·013). The composite of first heart failure hospitalisation or cardiovascular death occurred in 181 (32%) patients in the ferric carboxymaltose group and 209 (38%) in the placebo group (HR 0·80, 95% CI 0·66-0·98, p=0·030). Fewer days were lost due to heart failure hospitalisations and cardiovascular death for patients assigned to ferric carboxymaltose compared with placebo (369 days per 100 patient-years vs 548 days per 100 patient-years; RR 0·67, 95% CI 0·47-0·97, p=0·035). Serious adverse events occurred in 250 (45%) of 559 patients in the ferric carboxymaltose group and 282 (51%) of 551 patients in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: In patients with iron deficiency, a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 50%, and who were stabilised after an episode of acute heart failure, treatment with ferric carboxymaltose was safe and reduced the risk of heart failure hospitalisations, with no apparent effect on the risk of cardiovascular death. FUNDING: Vifor Pharma.

Relation between Baseline Coronary Atherosclerotic Status, Cardiovascular Events, and Malignancies in Type 2 Diabetics: A Long-Term Prospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Coronary artery disease and malignancy occur more frequently in patients with type 2 diabetes. They may share inflammation as a possible common pathogenetic mechanism, but it is unclear whether a clinical correlation exists between them. METHODS: This prospective cohort study followed 735 asymptomatic diabetics, aged 63.4 ± 5.3 years (mean ± standard deviation) for 12.2 ± 0.6 years after baseline coronary artery calcium scoring and cardiac computed tomography angiography. We examined extent and nature of coronary atherosclerosis and incidence of clinical cardiovascular (CV) events (death or myocardial infarction) and sought a relation to incidence of malignancy and malignancy mortality. RESULTS: Total mortality was 16.5% (121/735 patients): malignancy was cause of death in 48/121 (39.7%) of these and CV events in 44/121 (36.3%). There was no relation between extent of coronary atherosclerosis and incident malignancy (plaque volume 127 [21, 427] mm3 (median [interquartile range]) for incident malignancy versus 153 [24, 427] mm3 no malignancy, p = 0.71) or death from malignancy (plaque volume 176 [26, 646] versus 144 [22, 411] mm3, p = 0.32). There was also no relation between presence of high-risk plaque and incident malignancy (high-risk plaque in 27.1% with malignancy vs. 21.6% without, p = 0.18) or fatal malignancy (p = 0.16). Incident and fatal malignancy were not related to clinical CV events. Independent predictors of incident and fatal malignancy were age, smoking at baseline, and elevated C-reactive protein. CONCLUSION: This study found no relation between extent of coronary atherosclerosis or incidence of CV events and malignancy. Malignancy surpassed CV disease as the commonest long-term cause of mortality in middle-aged and older diabetics.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Acute Coronary Syndrome Treated Medically or With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Undergoing Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the AUGUSTUS Trial.

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of antithrombotic regimens may differ between patients with atrial fibrillation who have acute coronary syndromes (ACS), treated medically or with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and those undergoing elective PCI. METHODS: Using a 2×2 factorial design, we compared apixaban with vitamin K antagonists and aspirin with placebo in patients with atrial fibrillation who had ACS or were undergoing PCI and were receiving a P2Y12 inhibitor. We explored bleeding, death and hospitalization, as well as death and ischemic events, by antithrombotic strategy in 3 prespecified subgroups: patients with ACS treated medically, patients with ACS treated with PCI, and those undergoing elective PCI. RESULTS: Of 4614 patients enrolled, 1097 (23.9%) had ACS treated medically, 1714 (37.3%) had ACS treated with PCI, and 1784 (38.8%) had elective PCI. Apixaban compared with vitamin K antagonist reduced International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding in patients with ACS treated medically (hazard ratio [HR], 0.44 [95% CI, 0.28-0.68]), patients with ACS treated with PCI (HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.52-0.89]), and patients undergoing elective PCI (HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.64-1.04]; Pinteraction=0.052) and reduced death or hospitalization in the ACS treated medically (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.54-0.92]), ACS treated with PCI (HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.74-1.06]), and elective PCI (HR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.72-1.04]; Pinteraction=0.345) groups. Compared with vitamin K antagonists, apixaban resulted in a similar effect on death and ischemic events in the ACS treated medically, ACS treated with PCI, and elective PCI groups (Pinteraction=0.356). Aspirin had a higher rate of bleeding than did placebo in patients with ACS treated medically (HR, 1.49 [95% CI, 0.98-2.26]), those with ACS treated with PCI (HR, 2.02 [95% CI, 1.53-2.67]), and those undergoing elective PCI (HR, 1.91 [95% CI, 1.48-2.47]; Pinteraction=0.479). For the same comparison, there was no difference in outcomes among the 3 groups for the composite of death or hospitalization (Pinteraction=0.787) and death and ischemic events (Pinteraction=0.710). CONCLUSIONS: An antithrombotic regimen consisting of apixaban and a P2Y12 inhibitor without aspirin provides superior safety and similar efficacy in patients with atrial fibrillation who have ACS, whether managed medically or with PCI, and those undergoing elective PCI compared with regimens that include vitamin K antagonists, aspirin, or both. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02415400.

Rivaroxaban with or without Aspirin in Stable Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary cardiovascular prevention. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=-4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events. (Funded by Bayer; COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01776424 .).

Pantoprazole to Prevent Gastroduodenal Events in Patients Receiving Rivaroxaban and/or Aspirin in a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Antiplatelets and anticoagulants are associated with increased upper gastrointestinal bleeding. We evaluated whether proton pump inhibitor therapy could reduce this risk. METHODS: We performed a 3 × 2 partial factorial double-blind trial of 17,598 participants with stable cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease. Participants were randomly assigned to groups given pantoprazole 40 mg daily or placebo, as well as rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily with aspirin 100 mg once daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily, or aspirin 100 mg alone. The primary outcome was time to first upper gastrointestinal event, defined as a composite of overt bleeding, upper gastrointestinal bleeding from a gastroduodenal lesion or of unknown origin, occult bleeding, symptomatic gastroduodenal ulcer or ≥5 erosions, upper gastrointestinal obstruction, or perforation. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in upper gastrointestinal events between the pantoprazole group (102 of 8791 events) and the placebo group (116 of 8807 events) (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-1.15). Pantoprazole significantly reduced bleeding of gastroduodenal lesions (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.94; P = .03); this reduction was greater when we used a post-hoc definition of bleeding gastroduodenal lesion (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.74), although the number needed to treat still was high (n = 982; 95% confidence interval, 609-2528). CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized placebo-controlled trial, we found that routine use of proton pump inhibitors in patients receiving low-dose anticoagulation and/or aspirin for stable cardiovascular disease does not reduce upper gastrointestinal events, but may reduce bleeding from gastroduodenal lesions. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01776424.

Safety of Proton Pump Inhibitors Based on a Large, Multi-Year, Randomized Trial of Patients Receiving Rivaroxaban or Aspirin.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are effective at treating acid-related disorders. These drugs are well tolerated in the short term, but long-term treatment was associated with adverse events in observational studies. We aimed to confirm these findings in an adequately powered randomized trial. METHODS: We performed a 3 × 2 partial factorial double-blind trial of 17,598 participants with stable cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease randomly assigned to groups given pantoprazole (40 mg daily, n = 8791) or placebo (n = 8807). Participants were also randomly assigned to groups that received rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) with aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg) alone. We collected data on development of pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, other enteric infections, fractures, gastric atrophy, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, chronic obstructive lung disease, dementia, cardiovascular disease, cancer, hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality every 6 months. Patients were followed up for a median of 3.01 years, with 53,152 patient-years of follow-up. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the pantoprazole and placebo groups in safety events except for enteric infections (1.4% vs 1.0% in the placebo group; odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.75). For all other safety outcomes, proportions were similar between groups except for C difficile infection, which was approximately twice as common in the pantoprazole vs the placebo group, although there were only 13 events, so this difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: In a large placebo-controlled randomized trial, we found that pantoprazole is not associated with any adverse event when used for 3 years, with the possible exception of an increased risk of enteric infections. ClinicalTrials.gov Number: NCT01776424.

Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Lowering With Evolocumab and Outcomes in Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease: Insights From the FOURIER Trial (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research With PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk).

BACKGROUND: The PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor evolocumab reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and cardiovascular events in the FOURIER trial (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research With PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk). We investigated the efficacy and safety of evolocumab in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) as well as the effect on major adverse limb events. METHODS: FOURIER was a randomized trial of evolocumab versus placebo in 27 564 patients with atherosclerotic disease on statin therapy followed for a median of 2.2 years. Patients were identified as having PAD at baseline if they had intermittent claudication and an ankle brachial index of <0.85, or if they had a prior peripheral vascular procedure. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospital admission for unstable angina, or coronary revascularization. The key secondary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. An additional outcome of interest was major adverse limb events defined as acute limb ischemia, major amputation, or urgent peripheral revascularization for ischemia. RESULTS: Three thousand six hundred forty-two patients (13.2%) had PAD (1505 with no prior myocardial infarction or stroke). Evolocumab significantly reduced the primary end point consistently in patients with PAD (hazard ratio [HR] 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-0.94; P=0.0098) and without PAD (HR 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93; P=0.0003; Pinteraction=0.40). For the key secondary end point, the HRs were 0.73 (0.59-0.91; P=0.0040) for those with PAD and 0.81 (0.73-0.90; P<0.0001) for those without PAD (Pinteraction=0.41). Because of their higher risk, patients with PAD had larger absolute risk reductions for the primary end point (3.5% with PAD, 1.6% without PAD) and the key secondary end point (3.5% with PAD, 1.4% without PAD). Evolocumab reduced the risk of major adverse limb events in all patients (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.38-0.88; P=0.0093) with consistent effects in those with and without known PAD. There was a consistent relationship between lower achieved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and lower risk of limb events (P=0.026 for the beta coefficient) that extended down to <10 mg/dL. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PAD are at high risk of cardiovascular events, and PCSK9 inhibition with evolocumab significantly reduced that risk with large absolute risk reductions. Moreover, lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol with evolocumab reduced the risk of major adverse limb events. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01764633.

Clinical Benefit of Evolocumab by Severity and Extent of Coronary Artery Disease: Analysis From FOURIER.

BACKGROUND: The FOURIER trial (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research With PCSK9 Inhibition in Patients With Elevated Risk) recently showed that the PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9) inhibitor evolocumab significantly reduced major vascular events in patients with stable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, including patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI). Within the broad group of patients with prior MI, we hypothesized that readily ascertainable features would identify subsets who derive greater clinical risk reduction with evolocumab. METHODS: The 22 351 patients with a prior MI were characterized on the basis of time from most recent MI, number of prior MIs, and presence of residual multivessel coronary artery disease (≥40% stenosis in ≥2 large vessels). The relative and absolute risk reductions in major vascular events, including the primary end point (cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, or coronary revascularization) and the key secondary end point (cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke), with evolocumab in these subgroups were compared. RESULTS: A total of 8402 patients (38%) were within 2 years of their most recent MI; 5285 patients (24%) had ≥2 prior MIs; and 5618 patients (25%) had residual multivessel coronary artery disease. In a multivariable-adjusted model that simultaneously included all 3 high-risk features and other baseline covariates, more recent MI, multiple prior MIs, and residual multivessel coronary disease remained independent predictors of cardiovascular outcomes, with adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for the primary end point of 1.37 (95% confidence interval [CI],1.22-1.53), 1.78 (95% CI, 1.59-1.99), and 1.39 (95% CI, 1.24-1.56; all P<0.001). The relative risk reductions with evolocumab for the primary end point tended to be greater in the high-risk subgroups and were 20% (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.91), 18% (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.93), and 21% (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.91) for those with more recent MI, multiple prior MIs, and residual multivessel coronary artery disease, whereas they were 5% (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.85-1.05), 8% (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.84-1.02), and 7% (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.02) in those without, respectively. Given the higher baseline risk, the respective absolute risk reductions at 3 years exceeded 3% in the high-risk groups (3.4%, 3.7%, and 3.6%) versus ≈1% in the low-risk groups (0.8%, 1.3%, and 1.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients closer to their most recent MI, with multiple prior MIs, or with residual multivessel coronary artery disease are at high risk for major vascular events and experience substantial risk reductions with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lowering with evolocumab. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01764633.

Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in patients with stable peripheral or carotid artery disease: an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with peripheral artery disease have an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Antiplatelet agents are widely used to reduce these complications. METHODS: This was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial for which patients were recruited at 602 hospitals, clinics, or community practices from 33 countries across six continents. Eligible patients had a history of peripheral artery disease of the lower extremities (previous peripheral bypass surgery or angioplasty, limb or foot amputation, intermittent claudication with objective evidence of peripheral artery disease), of the carotid arteries (previous carotid artery revascularisation or asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis of at least 50%), or coronary artery disease with an ankle-brachial index of less than 0·90. After a 30-day run-in period, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive oral rivaroxaban (2·5 mg twice a day) plus aspirin (100 mg once a day), rivaroxaban twice a day (5 mg with aspirin placebo once a day), or to aspirin once a day (100 mg and rivaroxaban placebo twice a day). Randomisation was computer generated. Each treatment group was double dummy, and the patient, investigators, and central study staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke; the primary peripheral artery disease outcome was major adverse limb events including major amputation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01776424, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between March 12, 2013, and May 10, 2016, we enrolled 7470 patients with peripheral artery disease from 558 centres. The combination of rivaroxaban plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone reduced the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (126 [5%] of 2492 vs 174 [7%] of 2504; hazard ratio [HR] 0·72, 95% CI 0·57-0·90, p=0·0047), and major adverse limb events including major amputation (32 [1%] vs 60 [2%]; HR 0·54 95% CI 0·35-0·82, p=0·0037). Rivaroxaban 5 mg twice a day compared with aspirin alone did not significantly reduce the composite endpoint (149 [6%] of 2474 vs 174 [7%] of 2504; HR 0·86, 95% CI 0·69-1·08, p=0·19), but reduced major adverse limb events including major amputation (40 [2%] vs 60 [2%]; HR 0·67, 95% CI 0·45-1·00, p=0·05). The median duration of treatment was 21 months. The use of the rivaroxaban plus aspirin combination increased major bleeding compared with the aspirin alone group (77 [3%] of 2492 vs 48 [2%] of 2504; HR 1·61, 95% CI 1·12-2·31, p=0·0089), which was mainly gastrointestinal. Similarly, major bleeding occurred in 79 (3%) of 2474 patients with rivaroxaban 5 mg, and in 48 (2%) of 2504 in the aspirin alone group (HR 1·68, 95% CI 1·17-2·40; p=0·0043). INTERPRETATION: Low-dose rivaroxaban taken twice a day plus aspirin once a day reduced major adverse cardiovascular and limb events when compared with aspirin alone. Although major bleeding was increased, fatal or critical organ bleeding was not. This combination therapy represents an important advance in the management of patients with peripheral artery disease. Rivaroxaban alone did not significantly reduce major adverse cardiovascular events compared with asprin alone, but reduced major adverse limb events and increased major bleeding. FUNDING: Bayer AG.

Blood-Pressure Lowering in Intermediate-Risk Persons without Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Antihypertensive therapy reduces the risk of cardiovascular events among high-risk persons and among those with a systolic blood pressure of 160 mm Hg or higher, but its role in persons at intermediate risk and with lower blood pressure is unclear. METHODS: In one comparison from a 2-by-2 factorial trial, we randomly assigned 12,705 participants at intermediate risk who did not have cardiovascular disease to receive either candesartan at a dose of 16 mg per day plus hydrochlorothiazide at a dose of 12.5 mg per day or placebo. The first coprimary outcome was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke; the second coprimary outcome additionally included resuscitated cardiac arrest, heart failure, and revascularization. The median follow-up was 5.6 years. RESULTS: The mean blood pressure of the participants at baseline was 138.1/81.9 mm Hg; the decrease in blood pressure was 6.0/3.0 mm Hg greater in the active-treatment group than in the placebo group. The first coprimary outcome occurred in 260 participants (4.1%) in the active-treatment group and in 279 (4.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.10; P=0.40); the second coprimary outcome occurred in 312 participants (4.9%) and 328 participants (5.2%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.11; P=0.51). In one of the three prespecified hypothesis-based subgroups, participants in the subgroup for the upper third of systolic blood pressure (>143.5 mm Hg) who were in the active-treatment group had significantly lower rates of the first and second coprimary outcomes than those in the placebo group; effects were neutral in the middle and lower thirds (P=0.02 and P=0.009, respectively, for trend in the two outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: Therapy with candesartan at a dose of 16 mg per day plus hydrochlorothiazide at a dose of 12.5 mg per day was not associated with a lower rate of major cardiovascular events than placebo among persons at intermediate risk who did not have cardiovascular disease. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00468923.).

Blood-Pressure and Cholesterol Lowering in Persons without Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Elevated blood pressure and elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. Lowering both should reduce the risk of cardiovascular events substantially. METHODS: In a trial with 2-by-2 factorial design, we randomly assigned 12,705 participants at intermediate risk who did not have cardiovascular disease to rosuvastatin (10 mg per day) or placebo and to candesartan (16 mg per day) plus hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 mg per day) or placebo. In the analyses reported here, we compared the 3180 participants assigned to combined therapy (with rosuvastatin and the two antihypertensive agents) with the 3168 participants assigned to dual placebo. The first coprimary outcome was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, and the second coprimary outcome additionally included heart failure, cardiac arrest, or revascularization. The median follow-up was 5.6 years. RESULTS: The decrease in the LDL cholesterol level was 33.7 mg per deciliter (0.87 mmol per liter) greater in the combined-therapy group than in the dual-placebo group, and the decrease in systolic blood pressure was 6.2 mm Hg greater with combined therapy than with dual placebo. The first coprimary outcome occurred in 113 participants (3.6%) in the combined-therapy group and in 157 (5.0%) in the dual-placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.90; P=0.005). The second coprimary outcome occurred in 136 participants (4.3%) and 187 participants (5.9%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.89; P=0.003). Muscle weakness and dizziness were more common in the combined-therapy group than in the dual-placebo group, but the overall rate of discontinuation of the trial regimen was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of rosuvastatin (10 mg per day), candesartan (16 mg per day), and hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 mg per day) was associated with a significantly lower rate of cardiovascular events than dual placebo among persons at intermediate risk who did not have cardiovascular disease. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00468923.).

Cholesterol Lowering in Intermediate-Risk Persons without Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Previous trials have shown that the use of statins to lower cholesterol reduces the risk of cardiovascular events among persons without cardiovascular disease. Those trials have involved persons with elevated lipid levels or inflammatory markers and involved mainly white persons. It is unclear whether the benefits of statins can be extended to an intermediate-risk, ethnically diverse population without cardiovascular disease. METHODS: In one comparison from a 2-by-2 factorial trial, we randomly assigned 12,705 participants in 21 countries who did not have cardiovascular disease and were at intermediate risk to receive rosuvastatin at a dose of 10 mg per day or placebo. The first coprimary outcome was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, and the second coprimary outcome additionally included revascularization, heart failure, and resuscitated cardiac arrest. The median follow-up was 5.6 years. RESULTS: The overall mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level was 26.5% lower in the rosuvastatin group than in the placebo group. The first coprimary outcome occurred in 235 participants (3.7%) in the rosuvastatin group and in 304 participants (4.8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.91; P=0.002). The results for the second coprimary outcome were consistent with the results for the first (occurring in 277 participants [4.4%] in the rosuvastatin group and in 363 participants [5.7%] in the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.88; P<0.001). The results were also consistent in subgroups defined according to cardiovascular risk at baseline, lipid level, C-reactive protein level, blood pressure, and race or ethnic group. In the rosuvastatin group, there was no excess of diabetes or cancers, but there was an excess of cataract surgery (in 3.8% of the participants, vs. 3.1% in the placebo group; P=0.02) and muscle symptoms (in 5.8% of the participants, vs. 4.7% in the placebo group; P=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with rosuvastatin at a dose of 10 mg per day resulted in a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular events than placebo in an intermediate-risk, ethnically diverse population without cardiovascular disease. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and AstraZeneca; HOPE-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00468923.).