Randomised clinical trial: gastrointestinal events in arthritis patients treated with celecoxib, ibuprofen or naproxen in the PRECISION trial.

AIM: To evaluate GI safety of celecoxib compared with 2 nonselective (ns) NSAIDs, as a secondary objective of a large trial examining multiorgan safety. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind controlled trial analysed 24 081 patients. Osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis patients, needing ongoing NSAID treatment, were randomised to receive celecoxib 100-200 mg b.d., ibuprofen 600-800 mg t.d.s. or naproxen 375-500 mg b.d. plus esomeprazole, and low-dose aspirin or corticosteroids if already prescribed. Clinically significant GI events (CSGIE-bleeding, obstruction, perforation events from stomach downwards or symptomatic ulcers) and iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) were adjudicated blindly. RESULTS: Mean treatment and follow-up durations were 20.3 and 34.1 months. While on treatment or 30 days after, CSGIE occurred in 0.34%, 0.74% and 0.66% taking celecoxib, ibuprofen and naproxen. Hazard ratios (HR) were 0.43 (95% CI 0.27-0.68, P = 0.0003) celecoxib vs ibuprofen and 0.51 (0.32-0.81, P = 0.004) vs naproxen. There was also less IDA on celecoxib: HR 0.43 (0.27-0.68, P = 0.0003) vs ibuprofen; 0.40 (0.25-0.62, P < 0.0001) vs naproxen. Even taken with low-dose aspirin, fewer CSGIE occurred on celecoxib than ibuprofen (HR 0.52 [0.29-0.94], P = 0.03), and less IDA vs naproxen (0.42 [0.23-0.77, P = 0.005]). Corticosteroid use increased total GI events and CSGIE. H. pylori serological status had no influence. CONCLUSIONS: Arthritis patients taking NSAIDs plus esomeprazole have infrequent clinically significant gastrointestinal events. Co-prescribed with esomeprazole, celecoxib has better overall GI safety than ibuprofen or naproxen at these doses, despite treatment with low-dose aspirin or corticosteroids.

Effect of lipid-lowering therapy on early mortality after acute coronary syndromes: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Lipid-lowering agents are known to reduce long-term mortality in patients with stable coronary disease or significant risk factors. However, the effect of lipid-lowering therapy on short-term mortality immediately after an acute coronary syndrome has not been determined. We did an observational study using data from two randomised trials to investigate this issue. METHODS: We used data from the GUSTO IIb and PURSUIT trials to compare all-cause mortality among patients with acute coronary syndromes who were discharged on lipid-lowering agents (n=3653) with those who were not (n=17,156). A propensity analysis was done to adjust for presumed selection biases in the prescription of lipid-lowering agents. FINDINGS: Lipid-lowering therapy was associated with a smaller proportion of deaths at 30 days (17 [0.5%] vs 179 [1.0%], hazard ratio 0.44 [95% CI 0.27-0.73], p=0.001) and at 6 months (63 [1.7%] vs 605 [3.5%], 0.48 [0.37-0.63], p<0.0001). After adjustment for the propensity to be prescribed lipid-lowering agents and other potential confounders, prescription of a lipid-lowering agent at discharge remained associated with a reduced risk of death at 6 months (0.67 [0.48-0.95], p=0.023). INTERPRETATION: Prescription of a lipid-lowering drug at hospital discharge was independently associated with reduced short-term mortality among patients after an acute coronary syndrome.

Defining the optimal activated clotting time during percutaneous coronary intervention: aggregate results from 6 randomized, controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Unfractionated heparin has been the primary anticoagulant therapy for percutaneous coronary intervention for >20 years. Despite the availability of rapid "point of care" testing, little clinical data defining the optimal level of anticoagulation are available. Furthermore, recent reports have advocated the use of low-dose heparin regimens in the absence of large-scale, well-conducted studies to support this practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: We pooled the data from 6 randomized, controlled trials of novel adjunctive antithrombotic regimens for percutaneous coronary interventions in which unfractionated heparin constituted the control arm. Patients were divided into 25-s intervals of activated clotting times (ACTs), from <275 s to >476 s. In a total of 5216 patients, the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or any revascularization and major or minor bleeding at 7 days were calculated for each group and compared. An ACT in the range of 350 to 375 s provided the lowest composite ischemic event rate of 6.6%, or a 34% relative risk reduction in 7-day ischemic events compared with rates observed between 171 and 295 s by quartile analysis (P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to recent reports, the optimal suppression of ischemic events with unfractionated heparin therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention demands treatment to ACT levels that are substantially higher than currently appreciated. These data define a goal for heparin dosing within coronary interventions and establish a benchmark of optimal unfractionated heparin therapy against which future trials of novel antithrombotic regimens in percutaneous interventions can be compared.

Pronounced benefit of coronary stenting and adjunctive platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition in complex atherosclerotic lesions.

BACKGROUND: Previous trials testing stents compared with balloon angioplasty excluded patients with complex lesions and did not assess the effect of adjunctive platelet IIb/IIIa inhibition. This analysis sought to assess the effect of stenting and abciximab specifically for patients with complex lesions. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with complex lesions (long, tandem, severely calcified, restenotic, thrombotic, or ostial; total occlusions; bifurcations; saphenous vein grafts; and multivessel interventions) from the Evaluation of PTCA to Improve Long-Term Outcome by c7E3 GP IIb/IIIa Receptor Blockade (EPILOG) and the Evaluation of Platelet IIb/IIIa Inhibitor for Stenting (EPISTENT) trials were included in the analysis. The 1-year combined death or myocardial infarction rates in the 4 treatment groups were as follows: balloon angioplasty/placebo, 14.2%; stent/placebo, 15.8%; balloon angioplasty/abciximab, 7.6%; and stent/abciximab, 8.0% (P<0.001). Death rates were 3.2%, 3.1%, 2.1%, and 0.5%, respectively (P=0.03). The incidence of target vessel revascularization at 1 year was 30.5%, 18.0%, 24.4%, and 19.7% in the 4 groups, respectively (P<0.001). After adjustment for baseline differences, multivariate analysis demonstrated that the rate of death or myocardial infarction was independently reduced by balloon angioplasty/abciximab (hazard ratio, 0.51; P<0.001) and stent/abciximab (hazard ratio, 0.60; P=0.02) but was not affected by the use of stents alone. Conversely, target vessel revascularization was reduced by stent/placebo (hazard ratio, 0.53; P<0.001), stent/abciximab (hazard ratio, 0.58; P<0.001), and balloon angioplasty/abciximab (hazard ratio, 0.74; P=0.006) compared with balloon angioplasty/placebo, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of stenting and abciximab during percutaneous coronary interventions for patients with angiographically complex lesions confers additive long-term benefit with respect to death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization.

The benefit of abciximab in percutaneous coronary revascularization is not device-specific.

Abciximab has been shown to decrease adverse outcomes after percutaneous coronary interventions, but it is unclear whether this beneficial effect is more or less pronounced with specific devices. This study sought to determine the relative magnitude of the benefit of abciximab among different interventional devices. Data from the 5 placebo-controlled trials of abciximab during coronary intervention were pooled. Patients were divided into groups based on whether they received balloon angioplasty alone, elective stenting, bailout stenting, or directional coronary atherectomy. In the patients undergoing balloon angioplasty, the 30-day hazard ratio for death or myocardial infarction (MI) in the group randomized to abciximab versus the placebo-treated group was 0.52 (p <0.001), for elective stenting the hazard ratio was 0.51 (p <0.001), for bailout stenting the hazard ratio was 0.38 (p <0.001), and for directional coronary atherectomy the hazard ratio was 0.38 (p = 0.007). A Cox proportional-hazards model revealed that overall, the use of abciximab decreased the composite end point of 30-day death or MI rates (hazard ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.69, p <0. 001). However, bailout stenting and directional coronary atherectomy were associated with increased rates of death or MI compared with balloon angioplasty, as was elective stenting in women compared with men. There was no significant increase in major bleeding episodes associated with abciximab in any of the device categories. These findings from all the controlled coronary revascularization trials using abciximab demonstrate that a decrease in death and MI is achieved with abciximab regardless of the type of device used, without an increase in significant bleeding complications.

Abciximab reduces mortality in diabetics following percutaneous coronary intervention.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine whether abciximab therapy at the time of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) would favorably affect one-year mortality in patients with diabetes. BACKGROUND: Diabetics are known to have increased late mortality following PCI. METHODS: Data from three placebo-controlled trials of PCI, EPIC, EPILOG, and EPISTENT, were pooled. The one-year mortality rate for patients with a clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus was compared with the rate for nondiabetic patients treated with either abciximab or placebo. RESULTS: In the 1,462 diabetic patients, abciximab decreased the mortality from 4.5% to 2.5%, p = 0.031, and in the 5,072 nondiabetic patients, from 2.6% to 1.9%, p = 0.099. In patients with the clinical syndrome of insulin resistance--defined as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity--mortality was reduced by abciximab treatment from 5.1% to 2.3%, p = 0.044. The beneficial reduction in mortality with abciximab use in diabetics classified as insulin-requiring was from 8.1% to 4.2%, p = 0.073. Mortality in diabetics who underwent multivessel intervention was reduced from 7.7% to 0.9% with use of abciximab, p = 0.018. In a Cox proportional hazards survival model, the risk ratio for mortality with abciximab use compared with placebo was 0.642 (95% confidence interval 0.458-0.900, p = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: Abciximab decreases the mortality of diabetic patients to the level of placebo-treated nondiabetic patients. This beneficial effect is noteworthy in those diabetic patients who are also hypertensive and obese and in diabetics undergoing multivessel intervention. Besides its potential role in reducing repeat intervention for stented diabetic patients, abciximab therapy should be strongly considered in diabetic patients undergoing PCI to improve their survival.

Effect of abciximab on the pattern of reperfusion in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with primary angioplasty. RAPPORT investigators. ReoPro And Primary PTCA Organization and Randomized Trial.

We investigated the effect of platelet fibrinogen receptor blockade on infarct size after primary angioplasty. Abciximab significantly reduced the time-to-peak creatine kinase without affecting enzymatic infarct size, suggesting a beneficial effect on the pattern and speed of reperfusion.

Evaluation of a community based childhood injury prevention program.

OBJECTIVES: This pilot study evaluates the effectiveness of a community based childhood injury prevention program on the reduction of home hazards. METHODS: High risk pregnant women, who were enrolled in a home visiting program that augments existing health and human services, received initial home safety assessments. Clients received education about injury prevention practices, in addition to receiving selected home safety supplies. Fourteen questions from the initial assessment tool were repeated upon discharge from the program. Matched analyses were conducted to evaluate differences from initial assessment to discharge. RESULTS: A significantly larger proportion of homes were assessed as safe at discharge, compared with the initial assessment, for the following hazards: children riding unbuckled in all auto travel, Massachusetts Poison Center sticker on the telephone, outlet plugs in all unused electrical outlets, safety latches on cabinets and drawers, and syrup of ipecac in the home. CONCLUSIONS: A community based childhood injury prevention program providing education and safety supplies to clients significantly reduced four home hazards for which safety supplies were provided. Education and promotion of the proper use of child restraint systems in automobiles significantly reduced a fifth hazard, children riding unbuckled in auto travel. This program appears to reduce the prevalence of home hazards and, therefore, to increase home safety.