Clonal hematopoiesis, cardiovascular events and treatment benefit in 63,700 individuals from five TIMI randomized trials.

Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease in the general population. Currently, it is unclear whether this association is observed in large clinical trial cohorts with a high burden of existing CV disease or whether CV therapies can mitigate CHIP-associated CV risk. To address these questions, we studied 63,700 patients from five randomized trials that tested established therapies for CV disease, including treatments targeting the proteins PCSK9, SGLT2, P2Y12 and FXa. During a median follow-up of 2.5 years, 7,453 patients had at least one CV event (CV death, myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke or coronary revascularization). The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for CV events for CHIP+ patients was 1.07 (95% CI: 0.99-1.16, P = 0.08), with consistent risk estimates across each component of CV risk. Significant heterogeneity in the risk of MI was observed, such that CHIP+ patients had a 30% increased risk of first MI (aHR = 1.31 (1.05-1.64), P = 0.02) but no increased risk of recurrent MI (aHR = 0.94 (0.79-1.13), Pint = 0.008), as compared to CHIP- patients. Moreover, no significant heterogeneity in treatment effect between individuals with and without CHIP was observed for any of the therapies studied in the five trials. These results indicate that in clinical trial populations, CHIP is associated with incident but not recurrent coronary events and that the presence of CHIP does not appear to identify patients who will derive greater benefit from commonly used CV therapies.

Dose Reduction of Edoxaban in Patients 80 Years and Older With Atrial Fibrillation: Post Hoc Analysis of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In older patients with atrial fibrillation who take anticoagulants for stroke prevention, bleeding is increased compared with younger patients, thus, clinicians frequently prescribe lower than recommended doses in older patients despite limited randomized data. Objective: To evaluate ischemic and bleeding outcomes in patients 80 years and older with atrial fibrillation receiving edoxaban, 60 mg vs 30 mg, and edoxaban, 30 mg vs warfarin. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial (Effective Anticoagulation With Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48) was a parallel-design, double-blind, global clinical trial that randomized patients with atrial fibrillation to either one of 2 edoxaban dosing regimens or warfarin. This secondary analysis focused on patients 80 years or older without dose-reduction criteria receiving edoxaban, 60 mg vs 30 mg, as well as patients with or without dose-reduction criteria receiving edoxaban, 30 mg, vs warfarin. Study data were analyzed between October 2022 and December 2023. Interventions: Oral edoxaban, 30 mg once daily; edoxaban, 60 mg once daily; or warfarin. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary net clinical outcome of death, stroke or systemic embolism, and major bleeding and each individual component. Results: The current analysis included 2966 patients 80 years and older (mean [SD] age, 83 [2.7] years; 1671 male [56%]). Among 1138 patients 80 years and older without dose-reduction criteria, those receiving edoxaban, 60 mg vs 30 mg, had more major bleeding events (hazard ratio [HR], 1.57; 95% CI, 1.04-2.38; P = .03), particularly gastrointestinal hemorrhage (HR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.29-3.90; P = .004), with no significant difference in efficacy end points. Findings were supported by analyses of endogenous factor Xa inhibition, a marker of anticoagulant effect, which was comparable between younger patients receiving edoxaban, 60 mg, and older patients receiving edoxaban, 30 mg. In 2406 patients 80 years and older with or without dose-reduction criteria, patients receiving edoxaban, 30 mg, vs warfarin had lower rates of the primary net clinical outcome (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.68-0.91; P = .001), major bleeding (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45-0.77; P < .001), and death (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-1.00; P = .046), whereas rates of stroke or systemic embolism were comparable. Conclusions and Relevance: In this post hoc analysis of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 randomized clinical trial, in patients 80 years and older with atrial fibrillation, major bleeding events were lower in patients randomized to receive edoxaban, 30 mg per day, compared with either edoxaban, 60 mg per day (in patients without dose-reduction criteria), or warfarin (irrespective of dose-reduction status), without an offsetting increase in ischemic events. These data support the concept that lower-dose anticoagulants, such as edoxaban, 30 mg, may be considered in older patients with atrial fibrillation even in the absence of dose-reduction criteria. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00781391.

Will Factor XI Inhibitors Replace Current Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review provides an overview of the factor XI (FXI) inhibitor hypothesis for the development of novel anticoagulants which may be safer to those currently used in clinical practice and describes preliminary clinical data from phase 2 dose-ranging studies of patients with atrial fibrillation. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent data from phase 2 dose ranging studies demonstrate substantial reductions in bleeding with FXI pathway inhibition compared with currently approved anticoagulants. However, larger studies are necessary to demonstrate efficacy of FXI inhibition for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. FXI pathway inhibition holds great promise for revolutionizing the landscape of anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation, primarily by reducing bleeding risk; however, further data are necessary to demonstrate efficacy.

Application of the Win Ratio Method in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 Trial Comparing Edoxaban With Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular trials often use a composite end point and a time-to-first event model. We sought to compare edoxaban versus warfarin using the win ratio, which offers data complementary to time-to-first event analysis, emphasizing the most severe clinical events. METHODS: ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 (Effective Anticoagulation With Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48) was a double-blind, randomized trial in which patients with atrial fibrillation were assigned 1:1:1 to a higher dose edoxaban regimen (60/30 mg daily), a lower dose edoxaban regimen (30/15 mg daily), or warfarin. In an exploratory analysis, we analyzed the trial outcomes using an unmatched win ratio approach. The win ratio for each edoxaban regimen was the total number of edoxaban wins divided by the number of warfarin wins for the following ranked clinical outcomes: 1: death; 2: hemorrhagic stroke; 3: ischemic stroke/systemic embolic event/epidural or subdural bleeding; 4: noncerebral International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis major bleeding; and 5: cardiovascular hospitalization. RESULTS: 21 105 patients were randomized to higher dose edoxaban regimen (N=7035), lower dose edoxaban regimen (N=7034), or warfarin (N=7046), yielding >49 million pairs for each treatment comparison. The median age was 72 years, 38% were women, and 59% had prior vitamin K antagonist use. The win ratio was 1.11 (95% CI, 1.05-1.18) for higher dose edoxaban regimen versus warfarin and 1.11 (95% CI, 1.05-1.18) for lower dose edoxaban regimen versus warfarin. The favorable impacts of edoxaban on death (34% of wins) and cardiovascular hospitalization (41% of wins) were the major contributors to the win ratio. Results consistently favored edoxaban in subgroups based on creatine clearance and dose reduction at baseline, with heightened benefit among those without prior vitamin K antagonist use. CONCLUSIONS: In a win ratio analysis of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial, both dose regimens of edoxaban were superior to warfarin for the net clinical outcome incorporating ischemic and bleeding events. As the win ratio emphasizes the most severe clinical events, this analysis supports the superiority of edoxaban over warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00781391.

Effects of newer anti-hyperglycemic agents on cardiovascular outcomes in older adults: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To demonstrate cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA), and sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) across age-groups. METHODS: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane were searched for cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) testing newer agents until August 31, 2022 (PROSPERO ID CRD42021260167). Studies with ≥1000 T2D participants enrolled for ≥12 months were included. Random effect models were used to report relative-risk (RR) for three-point major adverse cardiovascular events (3P-MACE) and its components by age subgroups (65 years; 75 years). RESULTS: For SGLT-2is, five CVOTs (46,969 patients, 45-50 % ≥65 years) were included. SGLT-2is reduced risk of MACE (RR; 0.91 [CI, 0.85-0.98]); cardiovascular death (CV-death) (RR; 0.84 [CI, 0.73-0.96]); and all-cause mortality (ACM) (RR; 0.86 [CI, 0.79-0.93]) with no difference in subgroups <65 or ≥65 years. For GLP-1RAs, nine CVOTs (n = 64,236, 34-75 % ≥65 years) were included. GLP-1RAs reduced risk of MACE (RR; 0.89 [CI, 0.83-0.95]), stroke (RR; 0.86 [CI, 0.76-0.97]) and ACM (RR; 0.90 [CI, 0.83-0.97]) with no significant difference in subgroups <65 or ≥65 years. Additionally, GLP-1RAs reduced risk of MACE (10 %), ACM (12 %) and CV-death (12 %) with no significant difference in subgroups <75 or ≥75 years. Four CVOTs (n = 33,063; 35-58 % ≥65 years) with DPP-4is were included. There were no significant differences in risk for CV outcomes with DPP-4is compared to placebo in any of the age subgroups. CONCLUSION: The overall cardiovascular safety profile of newer anti-hyperglycemic agents is consistent in older and younger individuals.

Novel Polygenic Risk Score and Established Clinical Risk Factors for Risk Estimation of Aortic Stenosis.

Importance: Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have proven to be as strong as or stronger than established clinical risk factors for many cardiovascular phenotypes. Whether this is true for aortic stenosis remains unknown. Objective: To develop a novel aortic stenosis PRS and compare its aortic stenosis risk estimation to established clinical risk factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a longitudinal cohort study using data from the Million Veteran Program (MVP; 2011-2020), UK Biobank (2006-2010), and 6 Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) trials, including DECLARE-TIMI 58 (2013-2018), FOURIER (TIMI 59; 2013-2017), PEGASUS-TIMI 54 (2010-2014), SAVOR-TIMI 53 (2010-2013), SOLID-TIMI 52 (2009-2014), and ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 (2008-2013), which were a mix of population-based and randomized clinical trials. Individuals from UK Biobank and the MVP meeting a previously validated case/control definition for aortic stenosis were included. All individuals from TIMI trials were included unless they had a documented preexisting aortic valve replacement. Analysis took place from January 2022 to December 2023. Exposures: PRS for aortic stenosis (developed using data from MVP and validated in UK Biobank) and other previously validated cardiovascular PRSs, defined either as a continuous variable or as low (bottom 20%), intermediate, and high (top 20%), and clinical risk factors. Main Outcomes: Aortic stenosis (defined using International Classification of Diseases or Current Procedural Terminology codes in UK Biobank and MVP or safety event data in the TIMI trials). Results: The median (IQR) age in MVP was 67 (57-73) years, and 135 140 of 147 104 participants (92%) were male. The median (IQR) age in the TIMI trials was 66 (54-78) years, and 45 524 of 59 866 participants (71%) were male. The best aortic stenosis PRS incorporated 5 170 041 single-nucleotide variants and was associated with aortic stenosis in both the MVP testing sample (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.37-1.45 per 1 SD PRS; P = 4.6 × 10-116) and TIMI trials (hazard ratio, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.27-1.62 per 1 SD PRS; P = 3.2 × 10-9). Among genetic and clinical risk factors, the aortic stenosis PRS performed comparably to most risk factors besides age, and within a given age range, the combination of clinical and genetic risk factors was additive, providing a 3- to 4-fold increased gradient of risk of aortic stenosis. However, the addition of the aortic stenosis PRS to a model including clinical risk factors only improved risk discrimination of aortic stenosis by 0.01 to 0.02 (C index in MVP: 0.78 with clinical risk factors, 0.79 with risk factors and aortic stenosis PRS; C index in TIMI: 0.71 with clinical risk factors, 0.73 with risk factors and aortic stenosis PRS). Conclusions: This study developed and validated 1 of the first aortic stenosis PRSs. While aortic stenosis genetic risk was independent from clinical risk factors and performed comparably to all other risk factors besides age, genetic risk resulted in only a small improvement in overall aortic stenosis risk discrimination beyond age and clinical risk factors. This work sets the stage for further development of an aortic stenosis PRS.

When Direct Oral Anticoagulants Should Not Be Standard Treatment: JACC State-of-the-Art Review.

For most patients, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preferred over vitamin K antagonists for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation and for venous thromboembolism treatment. However, randomized controlled trials suggest that DOACs may not be as efficacious or as safe as the current standard of care in conditions such as mechanical heart valves, thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome, and atrial fibrillation associated with rheumatic heart disease. DOACs do not provide a net benefit in conditions such as embolic stroke of undetermined source. Their efficacy is uncertain for conditions such as left ventricular thrombus, catheter-associated deep vein thrombosis, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, and for patients with atrial fibrillation or venous thrombosis who have end-stage renal disease. This paper provides an evidence-based review of randomized controlled trials on DOACs, detailing when they have demonstrated efficacy and safety, when DOACs should not be the standard of care, where their safety and efficacy are uncertain, and areas requiring further research.

Efficacy and Safety of Non-Vitamin-K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin Across the Spectrum of Body Mass Index and Body Weight: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of 4 Randomized Clinical Trials of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of non-vitamin-K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) across the spectrum of body mass index (BMI) and body weight (BW) remain uncertain. METHODS: We analyzed data from COMBINE AF (A Collaboration Between Multiple Institutions to Better Investigate Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Use in Atrial Fibrillation), which pooled patient-level data from the 4 pivotal randomized trials of NOAC versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were stroke or systemic embolic events (stroke/SEE) and major bleeding, respectively; secondary outcomes were ischemic stroke/SEE, intracranial hemorrhage, death, and the net clinical outcome (stroke/SEE, major bleeding, or death). Each outcome was examined across BMI and BW. Because few patients had a BMI <18.5 kg/m2 (n=598), the primary analyses were restricted to those with a BMI ≥18.5 kg/m2. RESULTS: Among 58 464 patients, the median BMI was 28.3 (interquartile range, 25.2-32.2) kg/m2, and the median BW was 81.0 (interquartile range, 70.0-94.3) kg. The event probability of stroke/SEE was lower at a higher BMI irrespective of treatment, whereas the probability of major bleeding was lower at a higher BMI with warfarin but relatively unchanged across BMI with NOACs. NOACs reduced stroke/SEE overall (adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.73-0.88]; P<0.001), with a generally consistent effect across BMI (Ptrend across HRs, 0.48). NOACs also reduced major bleeding overall (HRadj, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.82-0.94]; P<0.001), but with attenuation of the benefit at a higher BMI (trend test across BMI [Ptrend], 0.003). The overall treatment effects of NOACs versus warfarin for secondary outcomes were consistent across BMI, with the exception of the net clinical outcome and death. While these outcomes were overall reduced with NOACs (net clinical outcome, HRadj, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.87-0.95]; P<0.001; death, HRadj, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.86-0.97]; P=0.003), these benefits were attenuated at higher BMI (Ptrend, 0.001 and 0.08, respectively). All findings were qualitatively similar when analyzed across BW. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment effect of NOACs versus warfarin in atrial fibrillation is generally consistent for stroke/SEE across the spectrum of BMI and BW, whereas the reduction in major bleeding is attenuated in those with higher BMI or BW. Death and the net clinical outcome are overall reduced with NOACs over warfarin, although there remain uncertainties for these outcomes at a very high BMI and BW.

Development and Validation of the DOAC Score: A Novel Bleeding Risk Prediction Tool for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation on Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulants.

BACKGROUND: Current clinical decision tools for assessing bleeding risk in individuals with atrial fibrillation (AF) have limited performance and were developed for individuals treated with warfarin. This study develops and validates a clinical risk score to personalize estimates of bleeding risk for individuals with atrial fibrillation taking direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs). METHODS: Among individuals taking dabigatran 150 mg twice per day from 44 countries and 951 centers in this secondary analysis of the RE-LY trial (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy), a risk score was developed to determine the comparative risk for bleeding on the basis of covariates derived in a Cox proportional hazards model. The risk prediction model was internally validated with bootstrapping. The model was then further developed in the GARFIELD-AF registry (Global Anticoagulant Registry in the Field-Atrial Fibrillation), with individuals taking dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and apixaban. To determine generalizability in external cohorts and among individuals on different DOACs, the risk prediction model was validated in the COMBINE-AF (A Collaboration Between Multiple Institutions to Better Investigate Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Use in Atrial Fibrillation) pooled clinical trial cohort and the Quebec Régie de l'Assurance Maladie du Québec and Med-Echo Administrative Databases (RAMQ) administrative database. The primary outcome was major bleeding. The risk score, termed the DOAC Score, was compared with the HAS-BLED score. RESULTS: Of the 5684 patients in RE-LY, 386 (6.8%) experienced a major bleeding event, within a median follow-up of 1.74 years. The prediction model had an optimism-corrected C statistic of 0.73 after internal validation with bootstrapping and was well-calibrated based on visual inspection of calibration plots (goodness-of-fit P=0.57). The DOAC Score assigned points for age, creatinine clearance/glomerular filtration rate, underweight status, stroke/transient ischemic attack/embolism history, diabetes, hypertension, antiplatelet use, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory use, liver disease, and bleeding history, with each additional point scored associated with a 48.7% (95% CI, 38.9%-59.3%; P<0.001) increase in major bleeding in RE-LY. The score had superior performance to the HAS-BLED score in RE-LY (C statistic, 0.73 versus 0.60; P for difference <0.001) and among 12 296 individuals in GARFIELD-AF (C statistic, 0.71 versus 0.66; P for difference = 0.025). The DOAC Score had stronger predictive performance than the HAS-BLED score in both validation cohorts, including 25 586 individuals in COMBINE-AF (C statistic, 0.67 versus 0.63; P for difference <0.001) and 11 945 individuals in RAMQ (C statistic, 0.65 versus 0.58; P for difference <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In individuals with atrial fibrillation potentially eligible for DOAC therapy, the DOAC Score can help stratify patients on the basis of expected bleeding risk.

Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and clinical outcomes in 19,697 patients with atrial fibrillation: Analyses from ENGAGE AF- TIMI 48 trial.

BACKGROUND: The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is the ratio between neutrophil and lymphocyte counts measured in peripheral blood. NLR is easily calculable based on a routine blood test available worldwide and may reflect systemic inflammation. However, the relationship between NLR and clinical outcomes in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients is not well-described. METHODS: We calculated NLR at baseline in ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48, a randomized trial comparing edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with AF followed for 2.8 years (median). The association of baseline NLR with major bleeding events, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), cardiovascular death, stroke/systemic embolism, and all-cause mortality were calculated. RESULTS: The median baseline NLR in 19,697 patients was 2.53 (interquartile range 1.89-3.41). NLR was associated with major bleeding events (HR 1.60; 95% CI 1.41-1.80), stroke/systemic embolism (HR 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09-1.44), MI (HR 1.73; 95% CI 1.41-2.12), MACE (HR 1.70; 95% CI 1.56-1.84), CV (HR 1.93; 95% CI 1.74-2.13) and all-cause mortality (HR 2.00; 95% CI 1.83-2.18). The relationships between NLR and outcomes remained significant after adjustment for risk factors. Edoxaban consistently reduced major bleeding. MACE, and CV death across NLR groups vs. warfarin. CONCLUSIONS: NLR represents a widely available, simple, arithmetic calculation that could be immediately and automatically reported during a white blood cell differential measurement to identify patients with AF at increased risk of bleeding, CV events, and mortality.

Risks of Heart Failure, Stroke, and Bleeding in Atrial Fibrillation According to Heart Failure Phenotypes.

BACKGROUND: The risks of heart failure (HF) events compared with stroke/systemic embolic events (SEE) or major bleeding (MB) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) vs heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in a large atrial fibrillation (AF) population have not been well-studied. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess HF outcomes, according to HF history and HF phenotypes (HFrEF vs HFpEF), and compare these events with SEE and MB, among patients with AF. METHODS: We analyzed patients enrolled in the ENGAGE-AF TIMI 48 (Effective Anticoagulation with Factor Xa Next Generation in AF-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48) trial. Cumulative incidence of heart failure hospitalization (HHF) or HF death was assessed and compared with the rates of fatal and nonfatal stroke/SEE and MB over a median follow-up of 2.8 years. RESULTS: Overall, 12,124 (57.4%) had a history of HF (37.7% HFrEF, 40.1% HFpEF, 22.1% with unknown ejection fraction). The rate per 100 person-years (py) of HHF or HF death (4.95; 95% CI: 4.70-5.20) was higher than of fatal and nonfatal stroke/SEE (1.77; 95% CI: 1.63-1.92) and MB (2.66; 95% CI: 2.47-2.86) among patients with HF history. HFrEF patients experienced a higher rate of HHF or HF death compared with HFpEF patients (7.15 vs 3.65; P < 0.001), while the rates of fatal and nonfatal stroke/SEE and MB were similar by HF phenotype. Patients with HF history had a higher rate of mortality after a HHF (1.29; 95% CI: 1.17-1.42) than after a stroke/SEE (0.69; 95% CI: 0.60-0.78) or after MB (0.61; 95% CI: 0.53-0.70). Overall, patients with nonparoxysmal AF had a higher rate of HF and stroke/SEE events regardless of HF history. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AF and HF, regardless of ejection fraction, are at a higher risk of HF events with higher subsequent mortality rates than of stroke/SEE or MB. While HFrEF is associated with a higher risk of HF events than HFpEF, the risk of stroke/SEE and MB is similar between HFrEF and HFpEF.

Serial assessment of biomarkers and heart failure outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: Cardiac functional and structural remodelling in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) contributes to development of heart failure (HF) as their major cardiovascular comorbidity. Circulating biomarkers may reflect these cardiac alterations. METHODS AND RESULTS: ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 was a randomized trial of edoxaban versus warfarin in 21 105 patients with AF. We performed a nested biomarker study, analysing high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT, n = 8705), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP, n = 8765), and growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15, n = 8705) at baseline and 12 months. Of the biomarker cohort, 5207 had a history of HF, among whom 3996 had known ejection fraction (EF): 926 with reduced EF (HFrEF; ≤40%), 1043 with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF; 40-49%), and 2027 with preserved EF (HFpEF; ≥50%). Elevated baseline hsTnT, NT-proBNP, and GDF-15 were associated with higher risk of hospitalization for HF (HHF) or HF death overall and in subpopulations defined by HF history and EF (p < 0.001 for each). These associations of outcome with each biomarker were consistent regardless of a history of HF or EF (p-interaction >0.05 for each). Patients who had an increase in or had persistently elevated values in any of the three biomarkers over 12 months were at higher risk for HHF or HF death in the overall population (p < 0.001 for each biomarker and category). CONCLUSION: Serial measurement of hsTnT, NT-proBNP, and GDF-15 revealed that higher baseline values, and increasing or persistently elevated values over 1 year are associated with higher risk of HF outcomes in patients with AF regardless of HF history or HF phenotype based on EF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov unique identifier NCT00781391.

Predictive Utility of a Coronary Artery Disease Polygenic Risk Score in Primary Prevention.

Importance: The clinical utility of polygenic risk scores (PRS) for coronary artery disease (CAD) has not yet been established. Objective: To investigate the ability of a CAD PRS to potentially guide statin initiation in primary prevention after accounting for age and clinical risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a longitudinal cohort study with enrollment starting on January 1, 2006, and ending on December 31, 2010, with data updated to mid-2021, using data from the UK Biobank, a long-term population study of UK citizens. A replication analysis was performed in Biobank Japan. The analysis included all patients without a history of CAD and who were not taking lipid-lowering therapy. Data were analyzed from January 1 to June 30, 2022. Exposures: Polygenic risk for CAD was defined as low (bottom 20%), intermediate, and high (top 20%) using a CAD PRS including 241 genome-wide significant single-nucleotide variations (SNVs). The pooled cohort equations were used to estimate 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk and classify individuals as low (<5%), borderline (5-<7.5%), intermediate (7.5-<20%), or high risk (≥20%). Main Outcomes and Measures: Myocardial infarction (MI) and ASCVD events (defined as incident clinical CAD [including MI], stroke, or CV death). Results: A total of 330 201 patients (median [IQR] age, 57 [40-74] years; 189 107 female individuals [57%]) were included from the UK Biobank. Over the 10-year follow-up, 4454 individuals had an MI. The CAD PRS was significantly associated with the risk of MI in all age groups but had significantly stronger risk prediction at younger ages (age <50 years: hazard ratio [HR] per 1 SD of PRS, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.56-1.89; age 50-60 years: HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.38-1.53; age >60 years: HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.37-1.48; P for interaction <.001). In patients younger than 50 years, those with high PRS had a 3- to 4-fold increased associated risk of MI compared with those in the low PRS category. A significant interaction between CAD PRS and age was replicated in Biobank Japan. When CAD PRS testing was added to the clinical ASCVD risk score in individuals younger than 50 years, 591 of 4373 patients (20%) with borderline risk were risk stratified into intermediate risk, warranting initiation of statin therapy and 3198 of 7477 patients (20%) with both borderline or intermediate risk were stratified as low risk, thus not warranting therapy. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cohort study suggest that the predictive ability of a CAD PRS was greater in younger individuals and can be used to better identify patients with borderline and intermediate clinical risk who should initiate statin therapy.

Outcomes and drivers of inappropriate dosing of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: There has been limited systematic evaluation of outcomes and drivers of inappropriate non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) dosing among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). This review identified and systematically evaluated literature on clinical and economic outcomes of inappropriate NOAC dosing and associated patient characteristics. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Econlit, PubMed and NHS EEDs databases were searched for English language observational studies from all geographies published between 2008 and 2020, examining outcomes of, or factors associated with, inappropriate NOAC dosing in adult patients with AF. RESULTS: One hundred and six studies were included in the analysis. Meta-analysis showed that compared with recommended NOAC dosing, off-label underdosing was associated with a null effect on stroke outcomes (ischaemic stroke and stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA), stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and stroke/SE/TIA). Meta-analysis of 15 studies examining clinical outcomes of inappropriate NOAC dosing found a null effect of underdosing on bleeding outcomes (major bleeding HR=1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.19; p=0.625) but an increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR=1.28, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.49; p=0.006). Overdosing was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (HR=1.41, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.85; p=0.013). No studies were found examining economic outcomes of inappropriate NOAC dosing. Narrative synthesis of 12 studies examining drivers of inappropriate NOAC dosing found that increased age, history of minor bleeds, hypertension, congestive heart failure and low creatine clearance (CrCl) were associated with an increased risk of underdosing. There was insufficient evidence to assess drivers of overdosing. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that off-label underdosing of NOACs does not reduce bleeding outcomes. Patients prescribed off-label NOAC doses are at an increased risk of all-cause mortality. These data underscore the importance of prescriber adherence to NOAC dosing guidelines to achieve optimal clinical outcomes for patients with AF. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020219844.

A polygenic risk score predicts atrial fibrillation in cardiovascular disease.

AIMS: Interest in targeted screening programmes for atrial fibrillation (AF) has increased, yet the role of genetics in identifying patients at highest risk of developing AF is unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 36,662 subjects without prior AF were analyzed from four TIMI trials. Subjects were divided into quintiles using a validated polygenic risk score (PRS) for AF. Clinical risk for AF was calculated using the CHARGE-AF model. Kaplan-Meier event rates, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs), C-indices, and net reclassification improvement were used to determine if the addition of the PRS improved prediction compared with clinical risk and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). Over 2.3 years, 1018 new AF cases developed. AF PRS predicted a significant risk gradient for AF with a 40% increased risk per 1-SD increase in PRS [HR: 1.40 (1.32-1.49); P < 0.001]. Those with high AF PRS (top 20%) were more than two-fold more likely to develop AF [HR 2.45 (1.99-3.03), P < 0.001] compared with low PRS (bottom 20%). Furthermore, PRS provided an additional gradient of risk stratification on top of the CHARGE-AF clinical risk score, ranging from a 3-year incidence of 1.3% in patients with low clinical and genetic risk to 8.7% in patients with high clinical and genetic risk. The subgroup of patients with high clinical risk, high PRS, and elevated NT-proBNP had an AF risk of 16.7% over 3 years. The C-index with the CHARGE-AF clinical risk score alone was 0.65, which improved to 0.67 (P < 0.001) with the addition of NT-proBNP, and increased further to 0.70 (P < 0.001) with the addition of the PRS. CONCLUSION: In patients with cardiovascular conditions, AF PRS is a strong independent predictor of incident AF that provides complementary predictive value when added to a validated clinical risk score and NT-proBNP.

Anticoagulation and Antiplatelet Therapy for Prevention of Venous and Arterial Thrombotic Events in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: COVID-PACT.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of prophylactic full-dose anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy in critically ill COVID-19 patients remain uncertain. METHODS: COVID-PACT (Prevention of Arteriovenous Thrombotic Events in Critically-ill COVID-19 Patients Trial) was a multicenter, 2×2 factorial, open-label, randomized-controlled trial with blinded end point adjudication in intensive care unit-level patients with COVID-19. Patients were randomly assigned to a strategy of full-dose anticoagulation or standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation. Absent an indication for antiplatelet therapy, patients were additionally randomly assigned to either clopidogrel or no antiplatelet therapy. The primary efficacy outcome was the hierarchical composite of death attributable to venous or arterial thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, clinically evident deep venous thrombosis, type 1 myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, systemic embolic event or acute limb ischemia, or clinically silent deep venous thrombosis, through hospital discharge or 28 days. The primary efficacy analyses included an unmatched win ratio and time-to-first event analysis while patients were on treatment. The primary safety outcome was fatal or life-threatening bleeding. The secondary safety outcome was moderate to severe bleeding. Recruitment was stopped early in March 2022 (≈50% planned recruitment) because of waning intensive care unit-level COVID-19 rates. RESULTS: At 34 centers in the United States, 390 patients were randomly assigned between anticoagulation strategies and 292 between antiplatelet strategies (382 and 290 in the on-treatment analyses). At randomization, 99% of patients required advanced respiratory therapy, including 15% requiring invasive mechanical ventilation; 40% required invasive ventilation during hospitalization. Comparing anticoagulation strategies, a greater proportion of wins occurred with full-dose anticoagulation (12.3%) versus standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (6.4%; win ratio, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.08-3.55]; P=0.028). Results were consistent in time-to-event analysis for the primary efficacy end point (full-dose versus standard-dose incidence 19/191 [9.9%] versus 29/191 [15.2%]; hazard ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.32-0.99]; P=0.046). The primary safety end point occurred in 4 (2.1%) on full dose and in 1 (0.5%) on standard dose (P=0.19); the secondary safety end point occurred in 15 (7.9%) versus 1 (0.5%; P=0.002). There was no difference in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.56-1.48]; P=0.70). There were no differences in the primary efficacy or safety end points with clopidogrel versus no antiplatelet therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with COVID-19, full-dose anticoagulation, but not clopidogrel, reduced thrombotic complications with an increase in bleeding, driven primarily by transfusions in hemodynamically stable patients, and no apparent excess in mortality. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04409834.