Finerenone in Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists reduce morbidity and mortality among patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, but their efficacy in those with heart failure and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction has not been established. Data regarding the efficacy and safety of the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction are needed. METHODS: In this international, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or greater, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive finerenone (at a maximum dose of 20 mg or 40 mg once daily) or matching placebo, in addition to usual therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of total worsening heart failure events (with an event defined as a first or recurrent unplanned hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure) and death from cardiovascular causes. The components of the primary outcome and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 32 months, 1083 primary-outcome events occurred in 624 of 3003 patients in the finerenone group, and 1283 primary-outcome events occurred in 719 of 2998 patients in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 0.95; P = 0.007). The total number of worsening heart failure events was 842 in the finerenone group and 1024 in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.94; P = 0.006). The percentage of patients who died from cardiovascular causes was 8.1% and 8.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.11). Finerenone was associated with an increased risk of hyperkalemia and a reduced risk of hypokalemia. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, finerenone resulted in a significantly lower rate of a composite of total worsening heart failure events and death from cardiovascular causes than placebo. (Funded by Bayer; FINEARTS-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04435626.).

Dapagliflozin in Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure and cardiovascular death among patients with chronic heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less. Whether SGLT2 inhibitors are effective in patients with a higher left ventricular ejection fraction remains less certain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 6263 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of more than 40% to receive dapagliflozin (at a dose of 10 mg once daily) or matching placebo, in addition to usual therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of worsening heart failure (which was defined as either an unplanned hospitalization for heart failure or an urgent visit for heart failure) or cardiovascular death, as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: Over a median of 2.3 years, the primary outcome occurred in 512 of 3131 patients (16.4%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 610 of 3132 patients (19.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 0.92; P<0.001). Worsening heart failure occurred in 368 patients (11.8%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 455 patients (14.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.91); cardiovascular death occurred in 231 patients (7.4%) and 261 patients (8.3%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.05). Total events and symptom burden were lower in the dapagliflozin group than in the placebo group. Results were similar among patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 60% or more and those with a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 60%, and results were similar in prespecified subgroups, including patients with or without diabetes. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Dapagliflozin reduced the combined risk of worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death among patients with heart failure and a mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. (Funded by AstraZeneca; DELIVER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03619213.).

Oral GLP-1 analogue: perspectives and impact on atherosclerosis in type 2 diabetic patients.

Cardiovascular events related to atherosclerosis are responsible for high morbidity and mortality among patients with type 2 diabetes. Improvement in care, especially in early stages, is crucial. Oral semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue, controls blood glucose and results in significant body weight loss in patients with type 2 diabetes. Beyond these well-known effects, an interesting aspect of this drug is its antiatherogenic activity, which should be further explored in clinical practice. This paper reviews the evidence related to oral semaglutide decreasing cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes, focusing on the drug's antiatherosclerotic properties. The glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue restores endothelial dysfunction, induces vasodilatation, and reduces plasma lipids. Oral semaglutide showed cardiovascular safety profile, with significant reduced risk of death from cardiovascular events. Based on current data, clinicians should consider oral semaglutide for type 2 diabetes management.

Correction to: GLP-1RAs in type 2 diabetes: mechanisms that underlie cardiovascular effects and overview of cardiovascular outcome data.

Following publication of the original article [1], based on the authors review, the GLP1 receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes published in Cardiovascular Diabetology, a meta-analysis of GLP-1 and non-GLP-1 based therapies was performed on cardiovascular outcomes.

GLP-1RAs in type 2 diabetes: mechanisms that underlie cardiovascular effects and overview of cardiovascular outcome data.

Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) have a substantial risk of developing cardiovascular disease. The strong connection between the severity of hyperglycaemia, metabolic changes secondary to T2DM and vascular damage increases the risk of macrovascular complications. There is a challenging demand for the development of drugs that control hyperglycaemia and influence other metabolic risk factors to improve cardiovascular outcomes such as cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina and heart failure (major adverse cardiovascular events). In recent years, introduction of the new drug class of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) has changed the treatment landscape as GLP-1RAs have become well-established therapies in T2DM. The benefits of GLP-1RAs are derived from their pleiotropic effects, which include appetite control, glucose-dependent secretion of insulin and inhibition of glucagon secretion. Importantly, their beneficial effects extend to the cardiovascular system. Large clinical trials have evaluated the cardiovascular effects of GLP-1RAs in patients with T2DM and elevated risk of cardiovascular disease and the results are very promising. However, important aspects still require elucidation, such as the specific mechanisms involved in the cardioprotective effects of these drugs. Careful interpretation is necessary because of the heterogeneity across the trials concerning the definition of cardiovascular risk or cardiovascular disease, baseline characteristics, routine care and event rates. The aim of this review is to describe the main clinical aspects of the GLP-1RAs, compare them using data from both the mechanistic and randomized controlled trials and discuss potential reasons for improved cardiovascular outcomes observed in these trials. This review may help clinicians to decide which treatment is most appropriate in reducing cardiovascular risk in patients with T2DM.

Atorvastatin for high-risk statin-naïve patients undergoing noncardiac surgery: The Lowering the Risk of Operative Complications Using Atorvastatin Loading Dose (LOAD) randomized trial.

Preliminary evidence suggests that statins may prevent major perioperative vascular complications. METHODS: We randomized 648 statin-naïve patients who were scheduled for noncardiac surgery and were at risk for a major vascular complication. Patients were randomized to a loading dose of atorvastatin or placebo (80 mg anytime within 18hours before surgery), followed by a maintenance dose of 40 mg (or placebo), started at least 12hours after the surgery, and then 40 mg/d (or placebo) for 7days. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, and stroke at 30days. RESULTS: The primary outcome was observed in 54 (16.6%) of 326 patients in the atorvastatin group and 59 (18.7%) of 316 patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.87, 95% CI 0.60-1.26, P=.46). No significant effect was observed on the 30-day secondary outcomes of all-cause mortality (4.3% vs 4.1%, respectively; HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.53-2.47, P=.74), nonfatal myocardial infarction (3.4% vs 4.4%, respectively; HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.35-1.68, P=.50), myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (13.2% vs 16.5%; HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.53-1.19, P=.26), and stroke (0.9% vs 0%, P=.25). CONCLUSION: In contrast to the prior observational and trial data, the LOAD trial has neutral results and did not demonstrate a reduction in major cardiovascular complications after a short-term perioperative course of statin in statin-naïve patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. We demonstrated, however, that a large multicenter blinded perioperative statin trial for high-risk statin-naïve patients is feasible and should be done to definitely establish the efficacy and safety of statin in this patient population.

Study Design of a Brazilian Observational Study of Edoxaban in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation (EdoBRA). / Desenho de Estudo de um Estudo Observacional Brasileiro sobre o uso de Edoxabana em Pacientes com Fibrilação Atrial (EdoBRA).

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials showed the safety of Edoxaban, a non-vitamin K-dependent oral anticoagulant (NOAC), and its efficacy to prevent stroke and systemic embolism in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients and also to prevent and treat venous thromboembolism. However, additional research is needed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of Edoxaban in a real-world scenario in the Brazilian population. OBJECTIVE: In order to understand the risks and benefits of Edoxaban use in routine clinical settings, the EdoBRA study is being conducted to gain insight into the safety and effectiveness of Edoxaban use in non-preselected patients with NVAF in Brazil. METHODS: The EdoBRA study is a multicenter, prospective, observational study conducted in 36 sites in Brazil. NVAF patients ≥ 18 years treated with commercially available Edoxaban who initiated treatment for at least 14 days and no longer than 90 days prior to enrollment, and who are not simultaneously participating in any interventional study are eligible for this study. Seven hundred patients are planned to be enrolled and one-year of follow up, with data collections expected at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months after the study enrollment. The primary safety objective is ISTH Clinically Relevant Bleeding, and the secondary effectiveness objective focuses on relevant cardiovascular outcomes related to NVAF. CONCLUSION: EdoBRA observational study will generate relevant additional information about NOAC Edoxaban on various aspects of patient management in routine care, such as its safety and effectiveness profile in patients with NVAF in Brazil.

FUNDAMENTO: Os ensaios clínicos demonstraram a segurança da Edoxabana, um anticoagulante oral não dependente de vitamina K (NOAC), e a sua eficácia na prevenção de acidente vascular cerebral e embolia sistémica em pacientes com fibrilação atrial não valvar (FANV) e também na prevenção e tratamento de tromboembolismo venoso. No entanto, pesquisas adicionais são necessárias para avaliar a segurança e a eficácia da Edoxabana em um cenário real na população brasileira. OBJETIVO: A fim de compreender os riscos e benefícios do uso da Edoxabana em cenários clínicos de rotina, o estudo EdoBRA está sendo conduzido para obter informações sobre a segurança e eficácia do uso da Edoxabana em pacientes não pré-selecionados com FANV no Brasil. MÉTODOS: O estudo EdoBRA é um estudo multicêntrico, prospectivo e observacional, realizado em 36 centros no Brasil. São elegíveis para este estudo pacientes com FANV, ≥ 18 anos de idade, tratados com Edoxabana disponível comercialmente, que iniciaram o tratamento por pelo menos 14 dias e não mais do que 90 dias antes da data de inclusão no estudo, e que não estão participando de nenhum outro estudo de intervenção. Ao todo, 700 pacientes devem ser inscritos e acompanhados por um ano, com coletas de dados programadas para o período basal e 3, 6 e 12 meses após a inscrição no estudo. O objetivo primário de segurança é o sangramento clinicamente relevante (de acordo com critérios da Sociedade Internacional de Trombose e Hemostasia - ISTH), e o objetivo secundário de eficácia são desfechos cardiovasculares relevantes relacionados à FANV. CONCLUSÃO: O estudo observacional EdoBRA gerará informações adicionais relevantes sobre a Edoxabana enquanto NOAC em diversos aspectos do manejo de pacientes no atendimento clínico de rotina, como perfil de segurança e efetividade em pacientes com FANV no Brasil.

Baseline characteristics of patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction: The FINEARTS-HF trial.

AIMS: To describe the baseline characteristics of participants in the FINEARTS-HF trial, contextualized with prior trials including patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF). The FINEARTS-HF trial is comparing the effects of the non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone with placebo in reducing cardiovascular death and total worsening HF events in patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with symptomatic HF, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥40%, estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 25 ml/min/1.73 m2, elevated natriuretic peptide levels and evidence of structural heart disease were enrolled and randomized to finerenone titrated to a maximum of 40 mg once daily or matching placebo. We validly randomized 6001 patients to finerenone or placebo (mean age 72 ± 10 years, 46% women). The majority were New York Heart Association functional class II (69%). The baseline mean LVEF was 53 ± 8% (range 34-84%); 36% of participants had a LVEF <50% and 64% had a LVEF ≥50%. The median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) was 1041 (interquartile range 449-1946) pg/ml. A total of 1219 (20%) patients were enrolled during or within 7 days of a worsening HF event, and 3247 (54%) patients were enrolled within 3 months of a worsening HF event. Compared with prior large-scale HFmrEF/HFpEF trials, FINEARTS-HF participants were more likely to have recent (within 6 months) HF hospitalization and greater symptoms and functional limitations. Further, concomitant medications included a larger percentage of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors than previous trials. CONCLUSIONS: FINEARTS-HF has enrolled a broad range of high-risk patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF. The trial will determine the safety and efficacy of finerenone in this population.

Efficacy and safety of baricitinib plus standard of care for the treatment of critically ill hospitalised adults with COVID-19 on invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: an exploratory, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The oral, selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor baricitinib has shown efficacy in studies of hospitalised adults with COVID-19. COV-BARRIER (NCT04421027) was a multinational, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of baricitinib in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of baricitinib plus standard of care in critically ill hospitalised adults with COVID-19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. METHODS: This exploratory trial followed the study design of COV-BARRIER in a critically ill cohort not included in the main phase 3 trial. The study was conducted across 18 hospitals in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and the USA. Participants (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection on baseline invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were randomly assigned (1:1) to baricitinib (4 mg) or placebo once daily for up to 14 days in combination with standard of care. Participants, study staff, and investigators were masked to study group assignment. Prespecified endpoints included all-cause mortality through days 28 and 60, number of ventilator-free days, duration of hospitalisation, and time to recovery through day 28. The efficacy analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and the safety analysis was done in the safety population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04421027. FINDINGS: Between Dec 23, 2020, and April 10, 2021, 101 participants were enrolled into the exploratory trial and assigned to baricitinib (n=51) or placebo (n=50) plus standard of care. Standard of care included baseline systemic corticosteroid use in 87 (86%) participants. Treatment with baricitinib significantly reduced 28-day all-cause mortality compared with placebo (20 [39%] of 51 participants died in the baricitinib group vs 29 [58%] of 50 in the placebo group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·54 [95% CI 0·31-0·96]; p=0·030; 46% relative reduction; absolute risk reduction 19%). A significant reduction in 60-day mortality was also observed in the baricitinib group compared with the placebo group (23 [45%] events vs 31 [62%]; HR 0·56 [95% CI 0·33-0·97]; p=0·027; 44% relative reduction; absolute risk reduction 17%). In every six baricitinib-treated participants, one additional death was prevented compared with placebo at days 28 and 60. The number of ventilator-free days did not differ significantly between treatment groups (mean 8·1 days [SD 10·2] in the baricitinib group vs 5·5 days [8·4] in the placebo group; p=0·21). The mean duration of hospitalisation in baricitinib-treated participants was not significantly shorter than in placebo-treated participants (23·7 days [SD 7·1] vs 26·1 days [3·9]; p=0·050). The rates of infections, blood clots, and adverse cardiovascular events were similar between treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: In critically ill hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, treatment with baricitinib compared with placebo (in combination with standard of care, including corticosteroids) reduced mortality, which is consistent with the mortality reduction observed in less severely ill patients in the hospitalised primary COV-BARRIER study population. However, this was an exploratory trial with a relatively small sample size; therefore, further phase 3 trials are needed to confirm these findings. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Recommendations for the management of cardiovascular risk in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia on tyrosine kinase inhibitors: risk assessment, stratification, treatment and monitoring.

This manuscript summarizes the results of the consensus meeting composed of hematologists and cardiologists to establish recommendations for the prevention and follow-up of cardiovascular (CV) risk in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) treated with BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) from the point of view of clinical practice and from the perspective of hematology consultation. In the first medical appointment, the CV risk factors should be identified to perform the baseline risk stratification, based on the Brazilian Guideline of Dyslipidemia and Atherosclerosis Prevention Update (risk levels: very high, high, intermediate and low). Once stratified, the treatment of the CV risk factors should be administered. If the patient presents risk factors, such as hypertension, diabetes, renal disease, smoking and hypercholesterolemia, the evaluation and initial treatment may be done by the hematologist, being an option the request for evaluation by a specialist. If the patient has a history of previous CV disease, we recommend referral to a specialist. As the CV risk score is dynamic and the control of risk factors can reduce the patient risk, this expert consensus recommends that the re-evaluation of the CV risk after the baseline should be performed at 3 months, 6 months and 12 months. After this period, it should be done annually and, for specific patients, at the clinician's discretion. The evaluation of the baseline CV risk and the safe administration of a TKI allow the patient to benefit from the maximum treatment, avoiding unwanted effects.

Effectiveness and safety of dabigatran in Latin American patients with atrial fibrillation: Two years follow up results from GLORIA-AF registry.

BACKGROUND: Real-world data from different regions are needed to support the external validity of controlled trials and assess the impact of new oral anticoagulants (NOAC) in clinical practice. METHODS: "GLORIA-AF" is a large, ongoing, multicenter, global, prospective registry program in patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) at risk of stroke. Newly diagnosed patients with NVAF (within 4.5 months) and a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 1 were consecutively enrolled. The study objective was to estimate the incidence rate of stroke and major bleeding after a two year follow up of patients on dabigatran that participated in the "GLORIA-AF" study (Phase II) in Latin America. RESULTS: Latin America included 378 eligible patients that received dabigatran in eight countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Perú, and Venezuela): 56.3% were male; mean age was 70.3 ± 10.8 years; 43.4% had paroxysmal AF; 36.0% persistent AF and 20.6% permanent AF. Mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3.2 ± 1.4; mean HAS-BLED score was 1.2 ± 0.8. Incidence rates for clinical events after 2-years of follow-up per 100 patient-years were as follows: stroke 0.33 (95% CI: 0.04-1.17), major bleeding 0.49 (95% CI: 0.10-1.42) and all-cause death 4.06 (95% CI: 2.63-6.00). Persistence with dabigatran at 6, 12 and 24 months was 91%, 86%, and 80%, respectively. CONCLUSION: These regional data shows the sustained safety and effectiveness of dabigatran over two years of follow-up, consistent with already available evidence. An increase in accessibility and incorporation of NOAC to anticoagulant treatment strategies could potentially have a positive impact on AF stroke prevention in Latin America.

Portuguese-Brazilian evidence-based guideline on the management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: In current management of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), cardiovascular and renal prevention have become important targets to be achieved. In this context, a joint panel of four endocrinology societies from Brazil and Portugal was established to develop an evidence-based guideline for treatment of hyperglycemia in T2DM. METHODS: MEDLINE (via PubMed) was searched for randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and observational studies related to diabetes treatment. When there was insufficient high-quality evidence, expert opinion was sought. Updated positions on treatment of T2DM patients with heart failure (HF), atherosclerotic CV disease (ASCVD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and patients with no vascular complications were developed. The degree of recommendation and the level of evidence were determined using predefined criteria. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: In non-pregnant adults, the recommended HbA1c target is below 7%. Higher levels are recommended in frail older adults and patients at higher risk of hypoglycemia. Lifestyle modification is recommended at all phases of treatment. Metformin is the first choice when HbA1c is 6.5-7.5%. When HbA1c is 7.5-9.0%, dual therapy with metformin plus an SGLT2i and/or GLP-1RA (first-line antidiabetic agents, AD1) is recommended due to cardiovascular and renal benefits. If an AD1 is unaffordable, other antidiabetic drugs (AD) may be used. Triple or quadruple therapy should be considered when HbA1c remains above target. In patients with clinical or subclinical atherosclerosis, the combination of one AD1 plus metformin is the recommended first-line therapy to reduce cardiovascular events and improve blood glucose control. In stable heart failure with low ejection fraction (< 40%) and glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) > 30 mL/min/1.73 m2, metformin plus an SGLT-2i is recommended to reduce cardiovascular mortality and heart failure hospitalizations and improve blood glucose control. In patients with diabetes-associated chronic kidney disease (CKD) (eGFR 30-60 mL/min/1.73 m2 or eGFR 30-90 mL/min/1.73 m2 with albuminuria > 30 mg/g), the combination of metformin and an SGLT2i is recommended to attenuate loss of renal function, reduce albuminuria and improve blood glucose control. In patients with severe renal failure, insulin-based therapy is recommended to improve blood glucose control. Alternatively, GLP-1RA, DPP4i, gliclazide MR and pioglitazone may be considered to reduce albuminuria. In conclusion, the current evidence supports individualizing anti-hyperglycemic treatment for T2DM.

Desenho de Estudo de um Estudo Observacional Brasileiro sobre o uso de Edoxabana em Pacientes com Fibrilação Atrial (EdoBRA) / Study Design of a Brazilian Observational Study of Edoxaban in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation (EdoBRA)

Resumo Fundamento: Os ensaios clínicos demonstraram a segurança da Edoxabana, um anticoagulante oral não dependente de vitamina K (NOAC), e a sua eficácia na prevenção de acidente vascular cerebral e embolia sistémica em pacientes com fibrilação atrial não valvar (FANV) e também na prevenção e tratamento de tromboembolismo venoso. No entanto, pesquisas adicionais são necessárias para avaliar a segurança e a eficácia da Edoxabana em um cenário real na população brasileira. Objetivo: A fim de compreender os riscos e benefícios do uso da Edoxabana em cenários clínicos de rotina, o estudo EdoBRA está sendo conduzido para obter informações sobre a segurança e eficácia do uso da Edoxabana em pacientes não pré-selecionados com FANV no Brasil. Métodos: O estudo EdoBRA é um estudo multicêntrico, prospectivo e observacional, realizado em 36 centros no Brasil. São elegíveis para este estudo pacientes com FANV, ≥ 18 anos de idade, tratados com Edoxabana disponível comercialmente, que iniciaram o tratamento por pelo menos 14 dias e não mais do que 90 dias antes da data de inclusão no estudo, e que não estão participando de nenhum outro estudo de intervenção. Ao todo, 700 pacientes devem ser inscritos e acompanhados por um ano, com coletas de dados programadas para o período basal e 3, 6 e 12 meses após a inscrição no estudo. O objetivo primário de segurança é o sangramento clinicamente relevante (de acordo com critérios da Sociedade Internacional de Trombose e Hemostasia - ISTH), e o objetivo secundário de eficácia são desfechos cardiovasculares relevantes relacionados à FANV. Conclusão: O estudo observacional EdoBRA gerará informações adicionais relevantes sobre a Edoxabana enquanto NOAC em diversos aspectos do manejo de pacientes no atendimento clínico de rotina, como perfil de segurança e efetividade em pacientes com FANV no Brasil.

Abstract Background: Clinical trials showed the safety of Edoxaban, a non-vitamin K-dependent oral anticoagulant (NOAC), and its efficacy to prevent stroke and systemic embolism in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients and also to prevent and treat venous thromboembolism. However, additional research is needed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of Edoxaban in a real-world scenario in the Brazilian population. Objective: In order to understand the risks and benefits of Edoxaban use in routine clinical settings, the EdoBRA study is being conducted to gain insight into the safety and effectiveness of Edoxaban use in non-preselected patients with NVAF in Brazil. Methods: The EdoBRA study is a multicenter, prospective, observational study conducted in 36 sites in Brazil. NVAF patients ≥ 18 years treated with commercially available Edoxaban who initiated treatment for at least 14 days and no longer than 90 days prior to enrollment, and who are not simultaneously participating in any interventional study are eligible for this study. Seven hundred patients are planned to be enrolled and one-year of follow up, with data collections expected at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months after the study enrollment. The primary safety objective is ISTH Clinically Relevant Bleeding, and the secondary effectiveness objective focuses on relevant cardiovascular outcomes related to NVAF. Conclusion: EdoBRA observational study will generate relevant additional information about NOAC Edoxaban on various aspects of patient management in routine care, such as its safety and effectiveness profile in patients with NVAF in Brazil.

Effect of a Multifaceted Quality Improvement Intervention on the Prescription of Evidence-Based Treatment in Patients at High Cardiovascular Risk in Brazil: The BRIDGE Cardiovascular Prevention Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Studies have found that patients at high cardiovascular risk often fail to receive evidence-based therapies in community practice. Objective: To evaluate whether a multifaceted quality improvement intervention can improve the prescription of evidence-based therapies. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this 2-arm cluster randomized clinical trial, patients with established atherothrombotic disease from 40 public and private outpatient clinics (clusters) in Brazil were studied. Patients were recruited from August 2016 to August 2017, with follow-up to August 2018. Data were analyzed in September 2018. Interventions: Case management, audit and feedback reports, and distribution of educational materials (to health care professionals and patients) vs routine practice. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was prescription of evidence-based therapies (ie, statins, antiplatelet therapy, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers) using the all-or-none approach at 12 months after the intervention period in patients without contraindications. Results: Of the 1619 included patients, 1029 (63.6%) were male, 1327 (82.0%) had coronary artery disease (843 [52.1%] with prior acute myocardial infarction), 355 (21.9%) had prior ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, and 197 (12.2%) had peripheral vascular disease, and the mean (SD) age was 65.6 (10.5) years. Among randomized clusters, 30 (75%) were cardiology sites, 6 (15%) were primary care units, and 26 (65%) were teaching institutions. Among eligible patients, those in intervention clusters were more likely to receive a prescription of evidence-based therapies than those in control clusters (73.5% [515 of 701] vs 58.7% [493 of 840]; odds ratio, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.14-4.65). There were no differences between the intervention and control groups with regards to risk factor control (ie, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, or diabetes). Rates of education for smoking cessation were higher among current smokers in the intervention group than in the control group (51.9% [364 of 701] vs 18.2% [153 of 840]; odds ratio, 11.24; 95% CI, 2.20-57.43). The rate of cardiovascular mortality, acute myocardial infarction, and stroke was 2.6% for patients from intervention clusters and 3.4% for those in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.43-1.34). Conclusions and Relevance: Among Brazilian patients at high cardiovascular risk, a quality improvement intervention resulted in improved prescription of evidence-based therapies. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02851732.

An 18-week, prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study of amlodipine/ramipril combination versus amlodipine monotherapy in the treatment of hypertension: the assessment of combination therapy of amlodipine/ramipril (ATAR) study.

BACKGROUND: A combination of antihypertensive agents of different drug classes in a fixed-dose combination (FDC) may offer advantages in terms of efficacy, tolerability, and treatment compliance. Combination of a calcium channel blocker with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor may act synergistically to reduce blood pressure (BP). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of an amlodipine/ramipril FDC with those of amlodipine monotherapy. METHODS: This 18-week, prospective, randomized, double-blind study was conducted at 8 centers across Brazil. Patients with stage 1 or 2 essential hypertension were enrolled. After a 2-week placebo run-in phase, patients received amlodipine/ramipril 2.5/2.5 mg or amlodipine 2.5 mg, after which the doses were titrated, based on BP, to 5/5 then 10/10 mg (amlodipine/ramipril) and 5 then 10 mg (amlodipine). The primary end point was BP measured in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Hematology and serum biochemistry were assessed at baseline and study end. Tolerability was assessed using patient interview, laboratory analysis, and physical examination, including measurement of ankle circumference to assess peripheral edema. RESULTS: A total of 222 patients completed the study (age range, 40-79 years; FDC group, 117 patients [mean dose, 7.60/7.60 mg]; monotherapy, 105 patients [mean dose, 7.97 mg]). The mean (SD) changes in systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP), as measured using 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and in the physician's office, were significantly greater with combination therapy than monotherapy, with the exception of office DBP (ABPM, -20.76 [1.25] vs -15.80 [1.18] mm Hg and -11.71 [0.78] vs -8.61 [0.74] mm Hg, respectively [both, P = 0.004]; office, -27.51 [1.40] vs -22.84 [1.33] mm Hg [P = 0.012] and -16.41 [0.79] vs -14.64 [0.75] mm Hg [P = NS], respectively). In the ITT analysis, the mean changes in ambulatory, but not office-based, BP were statistically significant (ABPM: SBP, -20.21 [1.14] vs -15.31 [1.12] mm Hg and DBP, -11.61 [0.72] vs -8.42 [0.70] mm Hg, respectively [both, P = 0.002]; office: SBP, -26.60 [1.34] vs -22.97 [1.30] mm Hg and DBP, -16.48 [0.78] vs -14.48 [0.75] mm Hg [both, P = NS]). Twenty-nine patients (22.1%) treated with combination therapy and 41 patients (30.6%) treated with monotherapy experienced > or =1 adverse event considered possibly related to study drug. The combination-therapy group had lower prevalence of edema (7.6% vs 18.7%; P = 0.011) and a similar prevalence of dry cough (3.8% vs 0.8%; P = NS). No clinically significant changes in laboratory values were found in either group. CONCLUSIONS: In this population of patients with essential hypertension, the amlodipine/ramipril FDC was associated with significantly reduced ambulatory and office-measured BP compared with amlodipine monotherapy, with the exception of office DBP. Both treatments were well tolerated.

Stroke Prevention with Oral Anticoagulants: Summary of the Evidence and Efficacy Measures as an Aid to Treatment Choices.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an established risk factor for a first or recurrent stroke. Despite proven efficacy in preventing stroke in patients with AF, warfarin is underused, partly due to safety concerns. Recent randomized trials have shown that non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) such as dabigatran (a direct thrombin inhibitor) and apixaban, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban (factor Xa inhibitors) are not only non-inferior or superior to warfarin but also demonstrate a decreased risk of cerebrovascular bleeding among patients with AF and moderate to high risk of stroke. Additionally, NOACs have an advantage of requiring no monitoring of the international normalized ratio compared with warfarin. This review summarizes the published literature on NOACs for the primary and secondary prevention of ischemic strokes, with an emphasis on the expected absolute benefits from the introduction of such agents. As compared with warfarin, NOACs significantly reduce the risk of hemorrhagic stroke, and only dabigatran (150 mg twice daily) was found to significantly reduce the risk of ischemic stroke. However, measures of relative benefits from medical interventions do not immediately provide the estimated benefit to be derived from an individual patient, something best done by considering the expected absolute benefit. The number needed to treat (NNT) is presented for various outcomes in the phase 3 trials of NOACs. Despite the important progress achieved with the introduction of NOACs, the availability of at least four agents with different efficacy and safety performances in comparison with warfarin prompts the question of whether any of these agents is preferable to another. It is hoped that future studies on the efficacy, safety, and economic performance of NOACs will further allow for rational choices within this important therapeutic class. Meanwhile, the NNT may be a valid metric to be considered by clinicians faced with the need to make such choices.

Independent predictors of effective blood pressure control in patients with hypertension on drug treatment in Brazil.

Population assessment of effective blood pressure (BP) control is fundamental for reducing the global burden of hypertension, especially in low- and middle-income countries. The authors evaluated the effectiveness of BP control and determined independent predictors associated with effective control among patients with hypertension on drug treatment in a large cross-sectional study performed in two metropolitan areas in Brazil's southeast region. A total of 43 647 patients taking antihypertensive treatment were identified. Less than half of the patients (40.9%) had controlled BP (systolic BP <140 mm Hg and diastolic BP <90 mm Hg). Independent predictors of BP control were age, eating fruit daily, physical activity, previous cardiovascular disease, male sex, diabetes mellitus, ethnicity, and obesity. Simple variables associated with BP control may be utilized for knowledge translation strategies aiming to reduce the burden of hypertension.

Brazilian guidelines on prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes: a position statement from the Brazilian Diabetes Society (SBD), the Brazilian Cardiology Society (SBC) and the Brazilian Endocrinology and Metabolism Society (SBEM).

BACKGROUND: Since the first position statement on diabetes and cardiovascular prevention published in 2014 by the Brazilian Diabetes Society, the current view on primary and secondary prevention in diabetes has evolved as a result of new approaches on cardiovascular risk stratification, new cholesterol lowering drugs, and new anti-hyperglycemic drugs. Importantly, a pattern of risk heterogeneity has emerged, showing that not all diabetic patients are at high or very high risk. In fact, most younger patients who have no overt cardiovascular risk factors may be more adequately classified as being at intermediate or even low cardiovascular risk. Thus, there is a need for cardiovascular risk stratification in patients with diabetes. The present panel reviews the best current evidence and proposes a practical risk-based approach on treatment for patients with diabetes. MAIN BODY: The Brazilian Diabetes Society, the Brazilian Society of Cardiology, and the Brazilian Endocrinology and Metabolism Society gathered to form an expert panel including 28 cardiologists and endocrinologists to review the best available evidence and to draft up-to-date an evidence-based guideline with practical recommendations for risk stratification and prevention of cardiovascular disease in diabetes. The guideline includes 59 recommendations covering: (1) the impact of new anti-hyperglycemic drugs and new lipid lowering drugs on cardiovascular risk; (2) a guide to statin use, including new definitions of LDL-cholesterol and in non-HDL-cholesterol targets; (3) evaluation of silent myocardial ischemia and subclinical atherosclerosis in patients with diabetes; (4) hypertension treatment; and (5) the use of antiplatelet therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes is a heterogeneous disease. Although cardiovascular risk is increased in most patients, those without risk factors or evidence of sub-clinical atherosclerosis are at a lower risk. Optimal management must rely on an approach that will cover both cardiovascular disease prevention in individuals in the highest risk as well as protection from overtreatment in those at lower risk. Thus, cardiovascular prevention strategies should be individualized according to cardiovascular risk while intensification of treatment should focus on those at higher risk.