Ferric Carboxymaltose in Heart Failure with Iron Deficiency.

BACKGROUND: Ferric carboxymaltose therapy reduces symptoms and improves quality of life in patients who have heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction and iron deficiency. Additional evidence about the effects of ferric carboxymaltose on clinical events is needed. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned ambulatory patients with heart failure, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less, and iron deficiency, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive intravenous ferric carboxymaltose or placebo, in addition to standard therapy for heart failure. Ferric carboxymaltose or placebo was given every 6 months as needed on the basis of iron indexes and hemoglobin levels. The primary outcome was a hierarchical composite of death within 12 months after randomization, hospitalizations for heart failure within 12 months after randomization, or change from baseline to 6 months in the 6-minute walk distance. The significance level was set at 0.01. RESULTS: We enrolled 3065 patients, of whom 1532 were randomly assigned to the ferric carboxymaltose group and 1533 to the placebo group. Death by month 12 occurred in 131 patients (8.6%) in the ferric carboxymaltose group and 158 (10.3%) in the placebo group; a total of 297 and 332 hospitalizations for heart failure, respectively, occurred by month 12; and the mean (±SD) change from baseline to 6 months in the 6-minute walk distance was 8±60 and 4±59 m, respectively (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney P = 0.02; unmatched win ratio, 1.10; 99% confidence interval, 0.99 to 1.23). Repeated dosing of ferric carboxymaltose appeared to be safe with an acceptable adverse-event profile in the majority of patients. The number of patients with serious adverse events occurring during the treatment period was similar in the two groups (413 patients [27.0%] in the ferric carboxymaltose group and 401 [26.2%] in the placebo group). CONCLUSIONS: Among ambulatory patients who had heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction and iron deficiency, there was no apparent difference between ferric carboxymaltose and placebo with respect to the hierarchical composite of death, hospitalizations for heart failure, or 6-minute walk distance. (Funded by American Regent, a Daiichi Sankyo Group company; HEART-FID ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03037931.).

Reliever-Triggered Inhaled Glucocorticoid in Black and Latinx Adults with Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Black and Latinx patients bear a disproportionate burden of asthma. Efforts to reduce the disproportionate morbidity have been mostly unsuccessful, and guideline recommendations have not been based on studies in these populations. METHODS: In this pragmatic, open-label trial, we randomly assigned Black and Latinx adults with moderate-to-severe asthma to use a patient-activated, reliever-triggered inhaled glucocorticoid strategy (beclomethasone dipropionate, 80 µg) plus usual care (intervention) or to continue usual care. Participants had one instructional visit followed by 15 monthly questionnaires. The primary end point was the annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations. Secondary end points included monthly asthma control as measured with the Asthma Control Test (ACT; range, 5 [poor] to 25 [complete control]), quality of life as measured with the Asthma Symptom Utility Index (ASUI; range, 0 to 1, with lower scores indicating greater impairment), and participant-reported missed days of work, school, or usual activities. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Of 1201 adults (603 Black and 598 Latinx), 600 were assigned to the intervention group and 601 to the usual-care group. The annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations was 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61 to 0.78) in the intervention group and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.73 to 0.92) in the usual-care group (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.999; P = 0.048). ACT scores increased by 3.4 points (95% CI, 3.1 to 3.6) in the intervention group and by 2.5 points (95% CI, 2.3 to 2.8) in the usual-care group (difference, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.5 to 1.2); ASUI scores increased by 0.12 points (95% CI, 0.11 to 0.13) and 0.08 points (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.09), respectively (difference, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.05). The annualized rate of missed days was 13.4 in the intervention group and 16.8 in the usual-care group (rate ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.95). Serious adverse events occurred in 12.2% of the participants, with an even distribution between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among Black and Latinx adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, provision of an inhaled glucocorticoid and one-time instruction on its use, added to usual care, led to a lower rate of severe asthma exacerbations. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and others; PREPARE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02995733.).

Framework of the Strengths and Challenges of Clinically Integrated Trials: An Expert Panel Report.

The limitations of the explanatory clinical trial framework include the high expense of implementing explanatory trials, restrictive entry criteria for participants, and redundant logistical processes. These limitations can result in slow evidence generation that is not responsive to population health needs, yielding evidence that is not generalizable. Clinically integrated trials, which integrate clinical research into routine care, represent a potential solution to this challenge and an opportunity to support learning health systems. The operational and design features of clinically integrated trials include a focused scope, simplicity in design and requirements, the leveraging of existing data structures, and patient participation in the entire trial process. These features are designed to minimize barriers to participation and trial execution and reduce additional research burdens for participants and clinicians alike. Broad adoption and scalability of clinically integrated trials are dependent, in part, on continuing regulatory, healthcare system, and payer support. This analysis presents a framework of the strengths and challenges of clinically integrated trials and is based on a multidisciplinary expert "Think Tank" panel discussion that included representatives from patient populations, academia, non-profit funding agencies, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and industry.

Initial Invasive or Conservative Strategy for Stable Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, -1.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522.).

Baseline characteristics of patients in the randomized study to investigate the efficacy and safety of ferric carboxymaltose as treatment for heart failure with iron deficiency: HEART-FID trial.

BACKGROUND: Prior clinical trials have investigated intravenous iron in patients with heart failure (HF) and iron deficiency, but the safety and efficacy of this therapy remains unclear. METHODS: We report the baseline demographics and clinical characteristics of patients enrolled in the HEART-FID study and compare HEART-FID participants with patients within other contemporary clinical trials of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), including other intravenous iron trials. RESULTS: In the 3,065 participants randomized in HEART-FID, median (IQR) age was 69.7 (62.0-76.5) years, 1,037 (33.8%) were female, 322 (10.5%) were Black, median ejection fraction was 32% (25%-37%), 1,837 (60.0%) had ischemic etiology, and baseline median NT-proBNP was 1,462 (721-2,966) pg/mL. Median baseline hemoglobin was 12.6 (11.6-13.6) g/dL, and median 6-minute walk test distance was 272 (196-350) m, similar to prior intravenous iron HFrEF trials. Common comorbidities included atrial fibrillation/flutter (43.7%), and type 2 diabetes (45.2%). Compared with several recent HFrEF trials, patients enrolled in HEART-FID had similar baseline demographics and clinical characteristics, though a greater proportion of women and Black participants were recruited in HEART-FID. In HEART-FID, HFrEF therapy included a beta-blocker in 92.5%, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) in 86.1% (with 29.7% ARNI), and a mineralocorticoid antagonist (MRA) in 55.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Patients enrolled in HEART-FID were similar to those enrolled in other contemporary HFrEF trials and registries, including trials of intravenous iron in HFrEF. However, the HEART-FID cohort is substantially larger and more racially diverse than prior trials of intravenous iron in HFrEF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03037931).

Myocardial Infarction in the ISCHEMIA Trial: Impact of Different Definitions on Incidence, Prognosis, and Treatment Comparisons.

BACKGROUND: In the ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches), an initial invasive strategy did not significantly reduce rates of cardiovascular events or all-cause mortality in comparison with a conservative strategy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate/severe myocardial ischemia. The most frequent component of composite cardiovascular end points was myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS: ISCHEMIA prespecified that the primary and major secondary composite end points of the trial be analyzed using 2 MI definitions. For procedural MI, the primary MI definition used creatine kinase-MB as the preferred biomarker, whereas the secondary definition used cardiac troponin. Procedural thresholds were >5 times the upper reference level for percutaneous coronary intervention and >10 times for coronary artery bypass grafting. Procedural MI definitions included (1) a category of elevated biomarker only events with much higher biomarker thresholds, (2) new ST-segment depression of ≥1 mm for the primary and ≥0.5 mm for the secondary definition, and (3) new coronary dissections >National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grade 3. We compared MI type, frequency, and prognosis by treatment assignment using both MI definitions. RESULTS: Procedural MIs accounted for 20.1% of all MI events with the primary definition and 40.6% of all MI events with the secondary definition. Four-year MI rates in patients undergoing revascularization were more frequent with the invasive versus conservative strategy using the primary (2.7% versus 1.1%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.98 [95% CI, 1.87-4.73]) and secondary (8.2% versus 2.0%; adjusted HR, 5.04 [95% CI, 3.64-6.97]) MI definitions. Type 1 MIs were less frequent with the invasive versus conservative strategy using the primary (3.40% versus 6.89%; adjusted HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.41-0.69]; P<0.0001) and secondary (3.48% versus 6.89%; adjusted HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.41-0.69]; P<0.0001) definitions. The risk of subsequent cardiovascular death was higher after a type 1 MI than after no MI using the primary (adjusted HR, 3.38 [95% CI, 2.03-5.61]; P<0.001) or secondary MI definition (adjusted HR, 3.52 [2.11-5.88]; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In ISCHEMIA, type 1 MI events using the primary and secondary definitions during 5-year follow-up were more frequent with an initial conservative strategy and associated with subsequent cardiovascular death. Procedural MI rates were greater in the invasive strategy and with the use of the secondary MI definition. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Clinical events classification (CEC) in clinical trials: Report on the current landscape and future directions - proceedings from the CEC Summit 2018.

IMPORTANCE: Clinical events adjudication is pivotal for generating consistent and comparable evidence in clinical trials. The methodology of event adjudication is evolving, but research is needed to develop best practices and spur innovation. OBSERVATIONS: A meeting of stakeholders from regulatory agencies, academic and contract research organizations, pharmaceutical and device companies, and clinical trialists convened in Chicago, IL, for Clinical Events Classification (CEC) Summit 2018 to discuss key topics and future directions. Formal studies are lacking on strategies to optimize CEC conduct, improve efficiency, minimize cost, and generally increase the speed and accuracy of the event adjudication process. Major challenges to CEC discussed included ensuring rigorous quality of the process, identifying safety events, standardizing event definitions, using uniform strategies for missing information, facilitating interactions between CEC members and other trial leadership, and determining the CEC's role in pragmatic trials or trials using real-world data. Consensus recommendations from the meeting include the following: (1) ensure an adequate adjudication infrastructure; (2) use negatively adjudicated events to identify important safety events reported only outside the scope of the primary endpoint; (3) conduct further research in the use of artificial intelligence and digital/mobile technologies to streamline adjudication processes; and (4) emphasize the importance of standardizing event definitions and quality metrics of CEC programs. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: As novel strategies for clinical trials emerge to generate evidence for regulatory approval and to guide clinical practice, a greater understanding of the role of the CEC process will be critical to optimize trial conduct and increase confidence in the data generated.

Causes of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular death in the ISCHEMIA trial.

BACKGROUND: The International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches trial demonstrated no overall difference in the composite primary endpoint and the secondary endpoints of cardiovascular (CV) death/myocardial infarction or all-cause mortality between an initial invasive or conservative strategy among participants with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe myocardial ischemia. Detailed cause-specific death analyses have not been reported. METHODS: We compared overall and cause-specific death rates by treatment group using Cox models with adjustment for pre-specified baseline covariates. Cause of death was adjudicated by an independent Clinical Events Committee as CV, non-CV, and undetermined. We evaluated the association of risk factors and treatment strategy with cause of death. RESULTS: Four-year cumulative incidence rates for CV death were similar between invasive and conservative strategies (2.6% vs 3.0%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.98; 95% CI [0.70-1.38]), but non-CV death rates were higher in the invasive strategy (3.3% vs 2.1%; HR 1.45 [1.00-2.09]). Overall, 13% of deaths were attributed to undetermined causes (38/289). Fewer undetermined deaths (0.6% vs 1.3%; HR 0.48 [0.24-0.95]) and more malignancy deaths (2.0% vs 0.8%; HR 2.11 [1.23-3.60]) occurred in the invasive strategy than in the conservative strategy. CONCLUSIONS: In International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches, all-cause and CV death rates were similar between treatment strategies. The observation of fewer undetermined deaths and more malignancy deaths in the invasive strategy remains unexplained. These findings should be interpreted with caution in the context of prior studies and the overall trial results.

World regional differences in outcomes for patients with peripheral artery disease: Insights from the EUCLID trial.

Regional variations exist in the epidemiology of peripheral artery disease (PAD), in comorbidities, use of secondary prevention, and outcomes. Large studies of these variations in worldwide populations are rare. The EUCLID (Examining Use of tiCagreLor In peripheral artery Disease) trial included 13,885 patients with PAD from four geographical regions (Central/South America, Europe, Asia, North America) and compared monotherapy with ticagrelor and clopidogrel. Inclusion criteria were either an ankle-brachial index < 0.80 or a prior revascularization. The primary efficacy endpoint was time to first occurrence of any event in the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke and did not differ between the study arms. This post hoc analysis of EUCLID confirmed that regional differences occurred in the inclusion criteria with more prior revascularization in North America (73.9%) and Asia (72.5%) compared with Central/South America (34.0%) and Europe (51.6%). The characteristics of patients also differed. Prior amputation at baseline was most frequent in Central/South America (6.3%) compared with other regions (1.6-2.8%). A history of stroke was most common in Asia, coronary heart disease in North America, and diabetes in Central/South America compared with other regions. The incidence of outcomes in patients with PAD varied by region. North America had the highest rate of the primary combined endpoint (5.97 events/100 patient-years). Corresponding rates were 4.80, 3.95, and 3.87 for Asia, Europe, and Central/South America, respectively. Hospitalization for acute limb ischemia (events/100 patient-years) was most frequent in Europe (0.75) and North America (0.74) compared with Asia (0.60) and Central/South America (0.33). Adjustment for inclusion criteria and relevant PAD characteristics did not have a major impact on these regional differences. Further adjustment for concomitant disease, risk factors, and preventive medication modified the regional differences only marginally. In conclusion, substantial regional differences were found in cardiovascular and limb outcomes in patients with PAD and were not explained by variation in the category of included patients, concomitant disease, risk factors, and prevention. Such differences, which may be due to variation in other factors such as background population rates or clinical care, need to be considered when designing and interpreting large international studies (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01732822).

COVID-19 Trials: Who Participates and Who Benefits?

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disproportionately afflicted vulnerable populations. Older adults, particularly residents of nursing facilities, represent a small percentage of the population but account for 40% of mortality from COVID-19 in the United States. Racial and ethnic minority individuals, particularly Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous Americans have experienced higher rates of infection and death than the White population. Although there has been an unprecedented explosion of clinical trials to examine potential therapies, participation by members of these vulnerable communities is crucial to obtaining data generalizable to those communities. METHODS: We undertook an open-label, factorial randomized clinical trial examining hydroxychloroquine and/or azithromycin for hospitalized patients. RESULTS: Of 53 screened patients, 11 (21%) were enrolled. Ten percent (3/31) of Black patients were enrolled, 33% (7/21) of White patients, and 50% (6/12) of Hispanic patients. Forty-seven percent (25/53) of patients declined participation despite eligibility; 58%(18/31) of Black patients declined participation. Forty percent (21/53) of screened patients were from a nursing facility and 10% (2/21) were enrolled. Enrolled patients had fewer comorbidities than nonenrolled patients: median modified Charlson comorbidity score 2.0 (interquartile range 0-2.5), versus 4.0 (interquartile range 2-6) for nonenrolled patients (P = 0.006). The limitations of the study were the low participation rate and the multiple treatment trials concurrently recruiting at our institution. CONCLUSIONS: The high rate of nonparticipation in our trial of nursing facility residents and Black people emphasizes the concern that clinical trials for therapeutics may not target key populations with high mortality rates.

Initial Invasive Versus Conservative Management of Stable Ischemic Heart Disease in Patients With a History of Heart Failure or Left Ventricular Dysfunction: Insights From the ISCHEMIA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Whether an initial invasive strategy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and at least moderate ischemia improves outcomes in the setting of a history of heart failure (HF) or left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) when ejection fraction is ≥35% but <45% is unknown. METHODS: Among 5179 participants randomized into ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches), all of whom had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥35%, we compared cardiovascular outcomes by treatment strategy in participants with a history of HF/LVD at baseline versus those without HF/LVD. Median follow-up was 3.2 years. RESULTS: There were 398 (7.7%) participants with HF/LVD at baseline, of whom 177 had HF/LVEF >45%, 28 HF/LVEF 35% to 45%, and 193 LVEF 35% to 45% but no history of HF. HF/LVD was associated with more comorbidities at baseline, particularly previous myocardial infarction, stroke, and hypertension. Compared with patients without HF/LVD, participants with HF/LVD were more likely to experience a primary outcome composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, HF, or resuscitated cardiac arrest (4-year cumulative incidence rate, 22.7% versus 13.8%; cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction, 19.7% versus 12.3%; and all-cause death or HF, 15.0% versus 6.9%). Participants with HF/LVD randomized to the invasive versus conservative strategy had a lower rate of the primary outcome (17.2% versus 29.3%; difference in 4-year event rate, -12.1% [95% CI, -22.6 to -1.6%]), whereas those without HF/LVD did not (13.0% versus 14.6%; difference in 4-year event rate, -1.6% [95% CI, -3.8% to 0.7%]; P interaction = 0.055). A similar differential effect was seen for the primary outcome, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality when invasive versus conservative strategy-associated outcomes were analyzed with LVEF as a continuous variable for patients with and without previous HF. CONCLUSIONS: ISCHEMIA participants with stable ischemic heart disease and at least moderate ischemia with a history of HF or LVD were at increased risk for the primary outcome. In the small, high-risk subgroup with HF and LVEF 35% to 45%, an initial invasive approach was associated with better event-free survival. This result should be considered hypothesis-generating. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Acute Limb Ischemia in Peripheral Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: Acute limb ischemia (ALI) is an important clinical event and an emerging cardiovascular clinical trial outcome. Risk factors for and outcomes after ALI have not been fully evaluated. METHODS: EUCLID (Examining Use of Ticagrelor in Peripheral Artery Disease) randomized patients with peripheral artery disease to ticagrelor versus clopidogrel. Enrollment criteria included an ankle-brachial index ≤0.80 or previous lower extremity revascularization. Patients were grouped according to the primary outcome, postrandomization ALI hospitalization. Baseline factors associated with ALI were identified using Cox proportional hazards modeling. Models with ALI hospitalization as a time-dependent covariate were developed for secondary outcomes of major adverse cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, ischemic stroke), all-cause mortality, and major amputation. RESULTS: Among 13 885 patients, 1.7% (n=232) had 293 ALI hospitalizations (0.8 per 100 patient-years). Patients with versus without ALI were younger and more often had previous peripheral revascularization and lower baseline ankle-brachial index. Treatment during ALI hospitalization included endovascular revascularization (39.2%, n=115), surgical bypass (24.6%, n=72), and major amputation (13.0%, n=38). After multivariable adjustment, any previous peripheral revascularization (Hazard Ratio [HR] 4.7, 95% CI 3.3-6.8, P<0.01), baseline atrial fibrillation (HR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1-3.2, P=0.03), and baseline ankle-brachial index ≤0.60 (HR 1.3 per 0.10 decrease, 95% CI 1.1-1.5, P<0.01) were associated with higher ALI risk. Older age (HR 0.8 per 10-year increase, 95% CI 0.7-1.0, P=0.02) and baseline statin use (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-0.9, P<0.01) were associated with lower risk for ALI. There was no relationship between randomized treatment to ticagrelor or clopidogrel and ALI. Among patients with previous revascularization, surgical versus endovascular procedures performed more than 6 months prior were associated with ALI (adjusted HR 2.63, 95% CI 1.75-3.96). In the overall population, ALI hospitalization was associated with subsequent MACE (adjusted HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0-2.1, P=0.04), all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 3.3, 95% CI 2.4-4.6, P<0.01), and major amputation (adjusted HR 34.2, 95% CI 9.7-20.8, P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Previous peripheral revascularization, baseline atrial fibrillation, and lower ankle-brachial index identify peripheral artery disease patients at heightened risk for ALI, an event associated with subsequent cardiovascular and limb-related morbidity and mortality. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01732822.

Major bleeding in patients with peripheral artery disease: Insights from the EUCLID trial.

BACKGROUND: Rates and predictors of major bleeding in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) treated with antiplatelets have not been well studied. This post hoc analysis of EUCLID aimed to determine the incidence of major/minor bleeding, predictors of major bleeding, and risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) following major bleeding events. METHODS: EUCLID, a multicenter randomized controlled trial of 13,885 patients with symptomatic PAD, compared ticagrelor with clopidogrel for the prevention of MACE. The primary safety end point was Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding. Baseline characteristics were used to develop a multivariable model to determine factors associated with TIMI major bleeding. The occurrence and timing of MACE relative to a first major bleeding event were determined. RESULTS: TIMI major bleeding occurred in 2.3% of participants overall (0.94 event/100 patient-years). There was no significant difference in major bleeding rates by treatment assignment. Factors associated with TIMI major bleeding included older age, geographic region, Rutherford class, and ß-blocker use. Patients with TIMI major bleeding postrandomization had an increased risk of MACE (hazard ratio [HR] 4.46; 95% CI 3.40-5.84; P < .0001) compared with those without major bleeding; the association was strongest within 30 days after a bleeding event. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with symptomatic PAD, 0.94 major bleeding event/100 patient-years was observed and associated with older age, residing in North America, disease severity, and ß-blocker use. Patients who had a major bleeding event were significantly more likely to experience MACE, especially within the first 30 days, when compared with patients who did not have major bleeding.

Stroke in Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease.

Background and Purpose- Predictors of stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) are poorly understood. The primary aims of this analysis were to (1) determine the incidence of ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke and TIA in patients with symptomatic PAD, (2) identify predictors of stroke in patients with PAD, and (3) compare the rate of stroke in ticagrelor- and clopidogrel-treated patients. Methods- EUCLID (Examining Use of Ticagrelor in Peripheral Artery Disease) randomized 13 885 patients with symptomatic PAD to receive monotherapy with ticagrelor or clopidogrel for the prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke). Ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke and TIA were adjudicated and measured as incidence rates postrandomization and cumulative incidence (per patient-years). Post hoc multivariable competing risk hazards analyses were performed using baseline characteristics to determine factors associated with all-cause stroke in patients with PAD. Results- A total of 458 cerebrovascular events in 424 patients (317 ischemic strokes, 39 hemorrhagic strokes, and 102 TIAs) occurred over a median follow-up of 30 months, for a cumulative incidence of 0.87, 0.11, and 0.27 per 100 patient-years, respectively. Age, prior stroke, prior atrial fibrillation/flutter, diabetes mellitus, geographic region, ankle-brachial index <0.60, prior amputation, and systolic blood pressure were independent baseline factors associated with the occurrence of all-cause stroke. After adjustment for baseline factors, the rates of ischemic stroke and all-cause stroke remained lower in patients treated with ticagrelor as compared with those receiving clopidogrel. There was no significant difference in the incidence of hemorrhagic stroke or TIA between the 2 treatment groups. Conclusions- In patients with symptomatic PAD, ischemic stroke and TIA occur frequently over time. Comorbidities such as age, prior stroke, prior atrial fibrillation/flutter, diabetes mellitus, higher blood pressure, prior amputation, lower ankle-brachial index, and geographic region were each independently associated with the occurrence of all-cause stroke. Use of ticagrelor, as compared with clopidogrel, was associated with a lower adjusted rate of ischemic and all-cause stroke. Further study is needed to optimize medical management and risk reduction of all-cause stroke in patients with PAD. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01732822.

Chronic kidney disease and risk for cardiovascular and limb outcomes in patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease: The EUCLID trial.

In patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease (PAD), the impact of chronic kidney disease (CKD) on major adverse cardiovascular events has not been fully evaluated. The Examining Use of Ticagrelor In PAD (EUCLID) trial randomized 13,885 patients with PAD to ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily or clopidogrel 75 mg daily. This post hoc analysis compared the incidence of the primary composite endpoint (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), or ischemic stroke) in patients with CKD (eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2) with those without CKD (eGFR ⩾ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2). The primary safety endpoint was thrombolysis in MI (TIMI) major bleeding. A total of 13,483 patients were included; 3332 (25%) had CKD, of whom 237 had stage 4/5 disease. Median follow-up was approximately 30 months. After statistical adjustment, patients with CKD had a higher rate of the primary endpoint compared with those without CKD (6.75 vs 3.72 events/100 patient-years; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.45, 95% CI 1.30-1.63). CKD was not associated with increased risk of hospitalization for acute limb ischemia (ALI) (adjusted HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.69-1.34) or major amputation (adjusted HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.66-1.28). CKD was not associated with a significantly increased risk of major bleeding (adjusted HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.89-1.64), but minor bleeding was significantly increased (adjusted HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.07-2.15). In conclusion, patients with PAD and CKD had higher rates of cardiovascular death, MI, and ischemic stroke, but similar rates of ALI, major amputation, and TIMI major bleeding when compared with patients without CKD. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01732822.

Outcomes of Patients with Critical Limb Ischaemia in the EUCLID Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Critical limb ischaemia (CLI) implies an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and the optimal antithrombotic treatment is not established. DESIGN, MATERIALS, METHODS: The EUCLID trial investigated the effect of monotherapy with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in 13,885 patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD); the primary endpoint was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischaemic stroke. Patients planned for revascularisation or amputation within 3 months, were excluded. This analysis focuses on the subgroup with CLI, defined by rest pain (58.8%), major (9.0%) or minor (32.2%) tissue loss. RESULTS: In EUCLID, 643 patients (4.6%) had CLI at baseline. Diabetes mellitus was more common in the CLI group, while coronary disease, carotid disease, and hypertension were more common in the non-CLI group. A majority of CLI patients (62.1%) had only lower extremity PAD. In patients enrolled on the ankle brachial index (ABI) criteria, ABI was 0.55 ± 0.21 (mean ± SD) for those with CLI versus 0.63 ± 0.15 for those without CLI. The primary efficacy endpoint significantly increased among patients with CLI compared with those without CLI with a rate of 8.85 versus 4.28/100 patient years (adjusted for baseline characteristics hazard ratio [HR] 1.43 [95% CI 1.16-1.76]; p = 0.0009). When acute limb ischaemia requiring hospitalisation was added to the model, significant differences remained (adjusted HR 1.38, [95% CI 1.13-1.69]; p = 0.0016). The 1 year mortality was 8.9%. A trend towards increased lower limb revascularisation among those with CLI was observed. Bleeding (TIMI major, fatal, intracranial) did not differ between those with and without CLI. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 5% of patients enrolled in EUCLID had CLI at baseline. Milder forms of CLI dominated, a result of the trial design. Patients with CLI had a significantly higher rate of cardiovascular mortality and morbidity versus those without CLI. Further efforts are required to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in PAD, especially in patients with CLI. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT01732822.

Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease and prior coronary artery disease: Insights from the EUCLID trial.

Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) are at heightened risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. We sought to evaluate the risk of concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with symptomatic PAD versus PAD without diagnosed CAD, and whether ticagrelor was superior to clopidogrel in reducing that risk. The EUCLID trial randomized 13,885 patients with PAD to antithrombotic monotherapy with ticagrelor or clopidogrel. CAD was defined as prior myocardial infarction (MI), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. Median follow-up was 30 months. Among 4032 (29%) patients with PAD and CAD, 63% had prior MI, 54% prior PCI, and 38% prior CABG. After adjustment for baseline characteristics, patients with PAD and CAD had significantly higher rates of the primary endpoint (cardiovascular death/MI/stroke, 15.3% vs 8.9%, hazard ratio (HR) 1.50, 95% CI: 1.13-1.99; p=0.005), but no statistically significant increase in acute limb ischemia (HR 1.28, 95% CI: 0.57-2.85; p=0.55) or major bleeding (HR 1.10, 95% CI: 0.49-2.48; p=0.81) versus PAD without CAD. Among patients with PAD and CAD, there was no differential treatment effect between ticagrelor versus clopidogrel for the primary efficacy endpoint (HR 1.02, 95% CI: 0.87-1.19; p=0.84), acute limb ischemia (HR 1.03, 95% CI: 0.63-1.69; p=0.89), or major bleeding (HR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.66-1.69; p=0.81). There was a statistically significant interaction between prior coronary stent placement and study treatment ( p=0.03) with a numerical reduction in the primary efficacy endpoint with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel (13.8% vs 16.8%, HR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.65-1.03; p=0.09). Patients with PAD and prior CAD had higher composite rates of cardiovascular death, MI, and ischemic stroke versus PAD without diagnosed CAD. There were no significant differences between ticagrelor and clopidogrel in cardiovascular events or major bleeding. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01732822.

SPIRIT 2013 Statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials.

The protocol of a clinical trial serves as the foundation for study planning, conduct, reporting, and appraisal. However, trial protocols and existing protocol guidelines vary greatly in content and quality. This article describes the systematic development and scope of SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013, a guideline for the minimum content of a clinical trial protocol. The 33-item SPIRIT checklist applies to protocols for all clinical trials and focuses on content rather than format. The checklist recommends a full description of what is planned; it does not prescribe how to design or conduct a trial. By providing guidance for key content, the SPIRIT recommendations aim to facilitate the drafting of high-quality protocols. Adherence to SPIRIT would also enhance the transparency and completeness of trial protocols for the benefit of investigators, trial participants, patients, sponsors, funders, research ethics committees or institutional review boards, peer reviewers, journals, trial registries, policymakers, regulators, and other key stakeholders.