Polypill Strategy in Secondary Cardiovascular Prevention.

BACKGROUND: A polypill that includes key medications associated with improved outcomes (aspirin, angiotensin-converting-enzyme [ACE] inhibitor, and statin) has been proposed as a simple approach to the secondary prevention of cardiovascular death and complications after myocardial infarction. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized, controlled clinical trial, we assigned patients with myocardial infarction within the previous 6 months to a polypill-based strategy or usual care. The polypill treatment consisted of aspirin (100 mg), ramipril (2.5, 5, or 10 mg), and atorvastatin (20 or 40 mg). The primary composite outcome was cardiovascular death, nonfatal type 1 myocardial infarction, nonfatal ischemic stroke, or urgent revascularization. The key secondary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal type 1 myocardial infarction, or nonfatal ischemic stroke. RESULTS: A total of 2499 patients underwent randomization and were followed for a median of 36 months. A primary-outcome event occurred in 118 of 1237 patients (9.5%) in the polypill group and in 156 of 1229 (12.7%) in the usual-care group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.96; P = 0.02). A key secondary-outcome event occurred in 101 patients (8.2%) in the polypill group and in 144 (11.7%) in the usual-care group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.90; P = 0.005). The results were consistent across prespecified subgroups. Medication adherence as reported by the patients was higher in the polypill group than in the usual-care group. Adverse events were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with a polypill containing aspirin, ramipril, and atorvastatin within 6 months after myocardial infarction resulted in a significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events than usual care. (Funded by the European Union Horizon 2020; SECURE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02596126; EudraCT number, 2015-002868-17.).

What can heart failure trialists learn from oncology trialists?

Globally, there has been little change in mortality rates from cardiovascular (CV) diseases or cancers over the past two decades (1997-2018). This is especially true for heart failure (HF) where 5-year mortality rates remain as high as 45-55%. In the same timeframe, the proportion of drug revenue, and regulatory drug approvals for cancer drugs, far out paces those for CV drugs. In 2018, while cancer drugs made 27% of Food and Drug Administration drug approvals, only 1% of drug approvals was for a CV drug, and over this entire 20 year span, only four drugs were approved for HF in the USA. Cardiovascular trialists need to reassess the design, execution, and purpose of CV clinical trials. In the area of oncology research, trials are much smaller, follow-up is shorter, and targeted therapies are common. Cardiovascular diseases and cancer are the two most common causes of death globally, and although they differ substantially, this review evaluates whether some elements of oncology research may be applicable in the CV arena. As one of the most underserved CV diseases, the review focuses on aspects of cancer research that may be applicable to HF research with the aim of streamlining the clinical trial process and decreasing the time and cost required to bring safe, effective, treatments to patients who need them. The paper is based on discussions among clinical trialists, industry representatives, regulatory authorities, and patients, which took place at the Cardiovascular Clinical Trialists Workshop in Washington, DC, on 8 December 2019 (https://www.globalcvctforum.com/2019 (14 September 2020)).

International differences in treatment effect: do they really exist and why?

With the increasing globalization of clinical trials, the opportunity exists to explore potential geographic differences in treatment effect within any major trial. Such geographic differences may arise because of international differences in patient selection, medical practice, or evaluation of outcomes, and such international variations need better documentation in trial reports. Appropriate pre-defined statistical analyses, including statistical tests of interaction regarding geographic heterogeneity in treatment effect, are important. Geographic variations are a particularly tricky form of subgroup analysis: they lack statistical power, are at best hypothesis-generating and can generate more confusion than insight. Referring to key examples, e.g. the PLATO and MERIT-HF, we emphasize the need for caution in interpreting evidence of potential geographic inconsistencies in treatment effect. Although it is appropriate to explore any biological or practical reasons for apparent geographic anomalies in treatment effect, the play of chance is often the most plausible and wise interpretation.

Diabetes clinical trials: helped or hindered by the current shift in regulatory requirements?

Glycaemic control is an inadequate surrogate marker of cardiovascular event reduction in patients with type 2 diabetes. Clinical trials to date have been unsuccessful in identifying a therapeutic approach that addresses the underlying problem in diabetes (glycaemic control) and reduces cardiovascular risk. The potential for some agents to increase the risk of cardiovascular events has led to substantial changes in regulatory requirements for new anti-diabetic therapies. These requirements, while key to ensuring the cardiovascular safety of new agents, fail to emphasize the need to show clinical benefits, such as less visual impairment, less need for dialysis, or fewer cardiovascular events and deaths. Changes in test results such as glycaemic control, serum creatinine, micro-albuminuria, or retinopathy are inadequate surrogates. Regulators should consider the potential advantages of offering extended patent protection in order to encourage companies to conduct long-term trials in diabetes and many other chronic medical conditions. Cooperative efforts among physicians, clinical trialists, regulators, and sponsors are needed to address unresolved issues including re-defining therapeutic targets that are meaningful to patients with diabetes, determining the appropriate length of follow-up for future trials, and considering the ethical and operational challenges of non-inferiority designs.

Implications of geographical variation on clinical outcomes of cardiovascular trials.

Cardiovascular clinical trials are increasingly conducted globally as a means to reduce costs, expedite timelines, provide broad applicability, and satisfy regulatory authorities. Potential problems with trial globalization include regional differences in patient characteristics, medical practice patterns, and health policies which may influence outcomes and limit generalizability. Moreover, concerns have been raised about ethical misconduct and unsatisfactory quality oversight in regions with less trial experience and infrastructure. This article reviews geographical differences in cardiovascular trials in heart failure, acute coronary syndromes, hypertension and atrial fibrillation. It also explores potential explanations for these differences and methods to standardize the presentation of trial results. This review is based on discussions between basic scientists and clinical trialists at the 8th Global Cardio Vascular Clinical Trialists Forum 2011 in Paris, France, from December 2 to 3.

Two-year outcomes post-discharge in Asian patients with acute coronary syndrome: Findings from the EPICOR Asia study.

AIMS: Approximately half of cases of cardiovascular disease (CVD) worldwide occur in Asia, with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) a leading cause of mortality. Long-term ACS-related outcomes data in Asia are limited. This analysis examined 2-year ACS-related outcomes in patients enrolled in the EPICOR Asia study, and the association between patient characteristics and management on outcomes. METHODS: EPICOR Asia is a multinational, prospective, primary data collection study of real-world management of Asian patients with ACS. Overall, 12,922 eligible adults (hospitalized for ACS within 48 h of symptom onset and who survived to discharge) were enrolled from 219 centers in eight Asian countries. Patients were followed up post-discharge for 2 years and clinical outcomes recorded. RESULTS: Patients were of mean age 60 years and 76% were male. Diagnoses were STEMI (51.2%), NSTEMI (19.9%), and UA (28.9%). During follow-up, 5.2% of patients died; NSTEMI patients had the highest risk profile. Mortality rate (adjusted HR [95% CI]) was similar in NSTEMI (0.97 [0.81-1.17]) and lower in UA (0.52 [0.33-0.82]) vs STEMI. Similar trends (adjusted) were seen for the composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke, and bleeding rates did not differ significantly. For all three diagnoses, patients who were medically managed had a markedly elevated risk of both death and the composite endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: During 2-year follow-up, adjusted risks of mortality, the composite endpoint, and bleeding rates were similar in NSTEMI and STEMI patients. Outcomes risk was better for invasive management. Long-term management strategies in Asia need to be optimized.

Long-term antithrombotic management patterns in Asian patients with acute coronary syndrome: 2-year observations from the EPICOR Asia study.

BACKGROUND: Despite guideline recommendations, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is frequently used for longer than 1 year after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event. In Asia, information on antithrombotic management patterns (AMPs), including DAPT post discharge, is sparse. This analysis evaluated real-world AMPs up to 2 years post discharge for ACS. HYPOTHESIS: There is wide variability in AMP use for ACS management in Asia. METHODS: EPICOR Asia (NCT01361386) is a prospective observational study of patients discharged after hospitalization for an ACS in eight countries/regions in Asia, followed up for 2 years. Here, we describe AMPs used and present an exploratory analysis of characteristics and outcomes in patients who received DAPT for ≤12 months post discharge compared with >12 months. RESULTS: Data were available for 12 922 patients; of 11 639 patients discharged on DAPT, 2364 (20.3%) received DAPT for ≤12 months and 9275 (79.7%) for >12 months, with approximately 60% still on DAPT at 2 years. Patients who received DAPT for >12 months were more likely to be younger, obese, lower Killip class, resident in India (vs China), and to have received invasive reperfusion. Clinical event rates during year 2 of follow-up were lower in patients with DAPT >12 vs ≤12 months, but no causal association can be implied in this non-randomized study. CONCLUSIONS: Most ACS patients remained on DAPT up to 1 year, in accordance with current guidelines, and over half remained on DAPT at 2 years post discharge. Patients not on DAPT at 12 months are a higher risk group requiring careful monitoring.