Ticagrelor and Aspirin or Aspirin Alone in Acute Ischemic Stroke or TIA.

BACKGROUND: Trials have evaluated the use of clopidogrel and aspirin to prevent stroke after an ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). In a previous trial, ticagrelor was not better than aspirin in preventing vascular events or death after stroke or TIA. The effect of the combination of ticagrelor and aspirin on prevention of stroke has not been well studied. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial involving patients who had had a mild-to-moderate acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke, with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 5 or less (range, 0 to 42, with higher scores indicating more severe stroke), or TIA and who were not undergoing thrombolysis or thrombectomy. The patients were assigned within 24 hours after symptom onset, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive a 30-day regimen of either ticagrelor (180-mg loading dose followed by 90 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (300 to 325 mg on the first day followed by 75 to 100 mg daily) or matching placebo plus aspirin. The primary outcome was a composite of stroke or death within 30 days. Secondary outcomes were first subsequent ischemic stroke and the incidence of disability within 30 days. The primary safety outcome was severe bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 11,016 patients underwent randomization (5523 in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and 5493 in the aspirin group). A primary-outcome event occurred in 303 patients (5.5%) in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and in 362 patients (6.6%) in the aspirin group (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 0.96; P = 0.02). Ischemic stroke occurred in 276 patients (5.0%) in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and in 345 patients (6.3%) in the aspirin group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.93; P = 0.004). The incidence of disability did not differ significantly between the two groups. Severe bleeding occurred in 28 patients (0.5%) in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and in 7 patients (0.1%) in the aspirin group (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with a mild-to-moderate acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke (NIHSS score ≤5) or TIA who were not undergoing intravenous or endovascular thrombolysis, the risk of the composite of stroke or death within 30 days was lower with ticagrelor-aspirin than with aspirin alone, but the incidence of disability did not differ significantly between the two groups. Severe bleeding was more frequent with ticagrelor. (Funded by AstraZeneca; THALES ClinicalTrial.gov number, NCT03354429.).

Ischemic Benefit and Hemorrhage Risk of Ticagrelor-Aspirin Versus Aspirin in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack.

Background and Purpose: In patients with acute mild-moderate ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack, the THALES trial (Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack Treated With Ticagrelor and Aspirin for Prevention of Stroke and Death) demonstrated that when added to aspirin, ticagrelor reduced stroke or death but increased risk of severe hemorrhage compared with placebo. The primary efficacy outcome of THALES included hemorrhagic stroke and death, events also counted in the primary safety outcome. We sought to disentangle risk and benefit, assess their relative impact, and attempt to identify subgroups with disproportionate risk or benefit. Methods: In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of patients with mild-to-moderate acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack, patients were randomized within 24 hours after symptom onset to a 30-day regimen of either ticagrelor plus aspirin or matching placebo plus aspirin. For the present analyses, we defined the efficacy outcome, major ischemic events, as the composite of ischemic stroke or nonhemorrhagic death, and defined the safety outcome, major hemorrhage, as intracranial hemorrhage or hemorrhagic death. Net clinical impact was defined as the combination of these 2 end points. Results: In 11 016 patients (5523 ticagrelor-aspirin and 5493 aspirin), a major ischemic event occurred in 294 patients (5.3%) in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and in 359 patients (6.5%) in the aspirin group (absolute risk reduction 1.19% [95% CI, 0.31%­2.07%]). Major hemorrhage occurred in 22 patients (0.4%) in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and 6 patients (0.1%) in the aspirin group (absolute risk increase 0.29% [95% CI, 0.10%­0.48%]). Net clinical impact favored ticagrelor-aspirin (absolute risk reduction 0.97% [95% CI, 0.08%­1.87%]). Findings were similar when different thresholds for disability were applied and over a range of predefined subgroups. Conclusions: In patients with mild-moderate ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack, ischemic benefits of 30-day treatment with ticagrelor-aspirin outweigh risks of hemorrhage. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03354429.

Ticagrelor Added to Aspirin in Acute Nonsevere Ischemic Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack of Atherosclerotic Origin.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Among patients with a transient ischemic attack or minor ischemic strokes, those with ipsilateral atherosclerotic stenosis of cervicocranial vasculature have the highest risk of recurrent vascular events. METHODS: In the double-blind THALES (The Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack Treated With Ticagrelor and ASA for Prevention of Stroke and Death) trial, we randomized patients with a noncardioembolic, nonsevere ischemic stroke, or high-risk transient ischemic attack to ticagrelor (180 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by 90 mg twice daily for days 2-30) or placebo added to aspirin (300-325 mg on day 1 followed by 75-100 mg daily for days 2-30) within 24 hours of symptom onset. The present paper reports a prespecified analysis in patients with and without ipsilateral, potentially causal atherosclerotic stenosis ≥30% of cervicocranial vasculature. The primary end point was time to the occurrence of stroke or death within 30 days. RESULTS: Of 11 016 randomized patients, 2351 (21.3%) patients had an ipsilateral atherosclerotic stenosis. After 30 days, a primary end point occurred in 92/1136 (8.1%) patients with ipsilateral stenosis randomized to ticagrelor and in 132/1215 (10.9%) randomized to placebo (hazard ratio 0.73 [95% CI, 0.56-0.96], P=0.023) resulting in a number needed to treat of 34 (95% CI, 19-171). In patients without ipsilateral stenosis, the corresponding event rate was 211/4387 (4.8%) and 230/4278 (5.4%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.74-1.08]; P=0.23, Pinteraction=0.245). Severe bleeding occurred in 4 (0.4%) and 3 (0.2%) patients with ipsilateral atherosclerotic stenosis on ticagrelor and on placebo, respectively (P=NS), and in 24 (0.5%) and 4 (0.1%), respectively, in 8665 patients without ipsilateral stenosis (hazard ratio=5.87 [95% CI, 2.04-16.9], P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this exploratory analysis comparing ticagrelor added to aspirin to aspirin alone, we found no treatment by ipsilateral atherosclerosis stenosis subgroup interaction but did identify a higher absolute risk and a greater absolute risk reduction of stroke or death at 30 days in patients with ipsilateral atherosclerosis stenosis than in those without. In this easily identified population, ticagrelor added to aspirin provided a clinically meaningful benefit with a number needed to treat of 34 (95% CI, 19-171). Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03354429.

Methodologies for pragmatic and efficient assessment of benefits and harms: Application to the SOCRATES trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Standard approaches to trial design and analyses can be inefficient and non-pragmatic. Failure to consider a range of outcomes impedes evidence-based interpretation and reduces power. Traditional approaches synthesizing information obtained from separate analysis of each outcome fail to incorporate associations between outcomes and recognize the cumulative nature of outcomes in individual patients, suffer from competing risk complexities during interpretation, and since efficacy and safety analyses are often conducted on different populations, generalizability is unclear. Pragmatic and efficient approaches to trial design and analyses are needed. METHODS: Approaches providing a pragmatic assessment of benefits and harms of interventions, summarizing outcomes experienced by patients, and providing sample size efficiencies are described. Ordinal outcomes recognize finer gradations of patient responses. Desirability of outcome ranking is an ordinal outcome combining benefits and harms within patients. Analysis of desirability of outcome ranking can be based on rank-based methodologies including the desirability of outcome ranking probability, the win ratio, and the proportion in favor of treatment. Partial credit analyses, involving grading the levels of the desirability of outcome ranking outcome similar to an academic test, provides an alternative approach. The methodologies are demonstrated using the acute stroke or transient ischemic attack treated with aspirin or ticagrelor and patient outcomes study (SOCRATES; NCT01994720), a randomized clinical trial. RESULTS: Two 5-level ordinal outcomes were developed for SOCRATES. The first was based on a modified Rankin scale. The odds ratio is 0.86 (95% confidence interval = 0.75, 0.99; p = 0.04) indicating that the odds of worse stroke categorization for a trial participant assigned to ticagrelor is 0.86 times that of a trial participant assigned to aspirin. The 5-level desirability of outcome ranking outcome incorporated and prioritized survival; the number of strokes, myocardial infarction, and major bleeding events; and whether a stroke event was disabling. The desirability of outcome ranking probability and win ratio are 0.504 (95% confidence interval = 0.499, 0.508; p = 0.10) and 1.11 (95% confidence interval = 0.98, 1.26; p = 0.10), respectively, implying that the probability of a more desirable result with ticagrelor is 50.4% and that a more desirable result occurs 1.11 times more frequently on ticagrelor versus aspirin. CONCLUSION: Ordinal outcomes can improve efficiency through required pre-specification, careful construction, and analyses. Greater pragmatism can be obtained by composing outcomes within patients. Desirability of outcome ranking provides a global assessment of the benefits and harms that more closely reflect the experience of patients. The desirability of outcome ranking probability, the proportion in favor of treatment, the win ratio, and partial credit can more optimally inform patient treatment, enhance the understanding of the totality of intervention effects on patients, and potentially provide efficiencies over standard analyses. The methods provide the infrastructure for incorporating patient values and estimating personalized effects.

Time to Loading Dose and Risk of Recurrent Events in the SOCRATES Trial.

Background and Purpose- Recurrent ischemia risk is high in the acute period after cerebral ischemic events. Effects of antiplatelet agents may vary by time to loading dose (TLD). We explored the risk of recurrent events and safety and efficacy of ticagrelor versus aspirin in relation to TLD. Methods- We randomized 13 199 patients with noncardioembolic, nonsevere ischemic stroke, or high-risk transient ischemic attack to 90-day ticagrelor or aspirin treatment within 24 hours of symptom onset. For this analysis, 13 126 patients were categorized by TLD as <12 hours or ≥12 hours from start of index event. The primary end point was the composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death within 90 days. Major bleeding was the primary safety end point. Results- TLD was <12 hours in 4403 (33.5%) and ≥12 hours in 8723 (66.5%). The Kaplan-Meier% for the primary end point for all patients with TLD<12 hours was 7.5% versus 6.9% in TLD≥12 hours. Among patients with TLD<12 hours, the primary end point occurred in 147/2196 (6.8%) randomized to ticagrelor and in 184/2207 (8.3%) randomized to aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.98; P=0.036). Among patients with TLD≥12 hours, the primary end point occurred in 6.7% patients randomized to ticagrelor versus 7.0% to aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.81-1.12; P=0.55). There was no significant treatment-by-TLD interaction. Major bleeding rates were comparable on ticagrelor and aspirin, regardless of TLD. Conclusions- The event rate for the primary end point was higher in patients treated early (<12 hours) versus later (≥12 hours). In this exploratory analysis, a larger numerical difference in the primary end point was observed among patients on ticagrelor than on aspirin when TLD was <12 hours compared with ≥12 hours, although the interaction terms for treatment-by-TLD were not significant. For major bleeding, no relation to TLD was observed. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01994720.

Ticagrelor versus Aspirin in Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack.

BACKGROUND: Ticagrelor may be a more effective antiplatelet therapy than aspirin for the prevention of recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events in patients with acute cerebral ischemia. METHODS: We conducted an international double-blind, controlled trial in 674 centers in 33 countries, in which 13,199 patients with a nonsevere ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack who had not received intravenous or intraarterial thrombolysis and were not considered to have had a cardioembolic stroke were randomly assigned within 24 hours after symptom onset, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive either ticagrelor (180 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by 90 mg twice daily for days 2 through 90) or aspirin (300 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg daily for days 2 through 90). The primary end point was the time to the occurrence of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death within 90 days. RESULTS: During the 90 days of treatment, a primary end-point event occurred in 442 of the 6589 patients (6.7%) treated with ticagrelor, versus 497 of the 6610 patients (7.5%) treated with aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.01; P=0.07). Ischemic stroke occurred in 385 patients (5.8%) treated with ticagrelor and in 441 patients (6.7%) treated with aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.00). Major bleeding occurred in 0.5% of patients treated with ticagrelor and in 0.6% of patients treated with aspirin, intracranial hemorrhage in 0.2% and 0.3%, respectively, and fatal bleeding in 0.1% and 0.1%. CONCLUSIONS: In our trial involving patients with acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, ticagrelor was not found to be superior to aspirin in reducing the rate of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death at 90 days. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01994720.).

Risk for Major Bleeding in Patients Receiving Ticagrelor Compared With Aspirin After Transient Ischemic Attack or Acute Ischemic Stroke in the SOCRATES Study (Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack Treated With Aspirin or Ticagrelor and Patient Outcomes).

BACKGROUND: Patients with minor acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack are at high risk for subsequent stroke, and more potent antiplatelet therapy in the acute setting is needed. However, the potential benefit of more intense antiplatelet therapy must be assessed in relation to the risk for major bleeding. The SOCRATES trial (Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack Treated With Aspirin or Ticagrelor and Patient Outcomes) was the first trial with ticagrelor in patients with acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack in which the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor were compared with those of aspirin. The main safety objective was assessment of PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes)-defined major bleeds on treatment, with special focus on intracranial hemorrhage (ICrH). METHODS: An independent adjudication committee blinded to study treatment classified bleeds according to the PLATO, TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction), and GUSTO (Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries) definitions. The definitions of ICrH and major bleeding excluded cerebral microbleeds and asymptomatic hemorrhagic transformations of cerebral infarctions so that the definitions better discriminated important events in the acute stroke population. RESULTS: A total of 13 130 of 13 199 randomized patients received at least 1 dose of study drug and were included in the safety analysis set. PLATO major bleeds occurred in 31 patients (0.5%) on ticagrelor and 38 patients (0.6%) on aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.34). The most common locations of major bleeds were intracranial and gastrointestinal. ICrH was reported in 12 patients (0.2%) on ticagrelor and 18 patients (0.3%) on aspirin. Thirteen of all 30 ICrHs (4 on ticagrelor and 9 on aspirin) were hemorrhagic strokes, and 4 (2 in each group) were symptomatic hemorrhagic transformations of brain infarctions. The ICrHs were spontaneous in 6 and 13, traumatic in 3 and 3, and procedural in 3 and 2 patients on ticagrelor and aspirin, respectively. In total, 9 fatal bleeds occurred on ticagrelor and 4 on aspirin. The composite of ICrH or fatal bleeding included 15 patients on ticagrelor and 18 on aspirin. Independently of bleeding classification, PLATO, TIMI, or GUSTO, the relative difference between treatments for major/severe bleeds was similar. Nonmajor bleeds were more common on ticagrelor. CONCLUSIONS: Antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor in patients with acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack showed a bleeding profile similar to that of aspirin for major bleeds. There were few ICrHs. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01994720.

Efficacy and Safety of Ticagrelor in Relation to Aspirin Use Within the Week Before Randomization in the SOCRATES Trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: SOCRATES (Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack Treated With Aspirin or Ticagrelor and Patient Outcomes), comparing ticagrelor with aspirin in patients with acute cerebral ischemia, found a nonsignificant 11% relative risk reduction for stroke, myocardial infarction, or death (P=0.07). Aspirin intake before randomization could enhance the effect of ticagrelor by conferring dual antiplatelet effect during a high-risk period for subsequent stroke. Therefore, we explored the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus aspirin in the patients who received any aspirin the week before randomization. METHODS: A prespecified subgroup analysis in SOCRATES (n=13 199), randomizing patients with acute ischemic stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of ≤5) or transient ischemic attack (ABCD2 score of ≥4) to 90-day treatment with ticagrelor or aspirin. Patients in the prior-aspirin group had received any aspirin within the week before randomization. Primary end point was time to stroke, myocardial infarction, or death. Safety end point was PLATO (Study of Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes) major bleeding. RESULTS: The 4232 patients in the prior-aspirin group were older, had more vascular risk factors, and vascular disease than the other patients. In the prior-aspirin group, the primary end point occurred in 138/2130 (6.5%) of patients on ticagrelor and in 177/2102 (8.3%) on aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.95; P=0.02); in patients with no prior-aspirin usage an event occurred in 304/4459 (6.9%) and 320/4508 (7.1%) on ticagrelor and aspirin, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.12; P=0.59). The treatment-by-prior-aspirin interaction was not statistically significant (P=0.10). In the prior-aspirin group, major bleeding occurred in 0.7% and 0.4% of patients on ticagrelor and aspirin, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-3.65; P=0.28). CONCLUSIONS: In this secondary analysis from SOCRATES, fewer primary end points occurred on ticagrelor treatment than on aspirin in patients receiving aspirin before randomization, but there was no significant treatment-by-prior-aspirin interaction. A new study will investigate the benefit-risk of combining ticagrelor and aspirin in patients with acute cerebral ischemia (URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03354429). CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01994720.

Ticagrelor in Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack in Asian Patients: From the SOCRATES Trial (Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack Treated With Aspirin or Ticagrelor and Patient Outcomes).

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In the SOCRATES trial (Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack Treated With Aspirin or Ticagrelor and Patient Outcomes), ticagrelor was not superior to aspirin. Because of differences in patient demographics and stroke disease pattern in Asia, outcomes of ticagrelor versus aspirin were assessed among Asian patients in a prespecified exploratory analysis. METHODS: Baseline demographics, treatment effects, and safety of ticagrelor and aspirin were assessed among Asian patients. Differences in outcomes between groups were assessed using Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: A total of 3858 (29.2%) SOCRATES participants were recruited in Asia. Among the Asian patients, the primary end point event occurred in 186 (9.6%) of the 1933 patients treated with ticagrelor, versus 224 (11.6%) of the 1925 patients treated with aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.99). The exploratory P value for treatment-by-region interaction was 0.27. The primary end point event rate in the Asian subgroup was numerically higher than that in the non-Asian group (10.6% versus 5.7%; nominal P<0.01). Among the Asian patients, the rate of PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes)-defined major bleeding was similar in the ticagrelor group and the aspirin group (0.6% versus 0.8%; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-1.61). CONCLUSIONS: The event rates were numerically higher in the Asian patients. Among the Asian patients with acute stroke or transient ischemic attacks, there was a trend toward a lower hazard ratio in reducing risk of the primary end point of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death in the ticagrelor group. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01994720.

Ticagrelor Versus Aspirin in Acute Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Ticagrelor is an effective antiplatelet therapy among patients with atherosclerotic disease and, therefore, could be more effective than aspirin in preventing recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events among patients with embolic stroke of unknown source (ESUS), which includes patients with ipsilateral stenosis <50% and aortic arch atherosclerosis. METHODS: We randomized 13 199 patients with a noncardioembolic, nonsevere ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack to ticagrelor (180 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by 90 mg twice daily for days 2-90) or aspirin (300 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg daily for days 2-90) within 24 hours of symptom onset. In all patients, investigators informed on the presence of ipsilateral stenosis ≥50%, small deep infarct <15 mm, and on cardiac source of embolism detected after enrollment or rare causes, which allowed to construct an ESUS category in all other patients with documented brain infarction. The primary end point was the time to the occurrence of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death within 90 days. RESULTS: ESUS was identified in 4329 (32.8%) patients. There was no treatment-by-ESUS category interaction (P=0.83). Hazard ratio in ESUS patients was 0.87 (95% confidence interval, 0.68-1.10; P=0.24). However, hazard ratio was 0.51 (95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.90; P=0.02) in ESUS patients with ipsilateral stenosis <50% or aortic arch atherosclerosis (n=961) and 0.98 (95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.27; P=0.89) in the remaining ESUS patients (n=3368; P for heterogeneity =0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc, exploratory analysis, we found no treatment-by-ESUS category interaction. ESUS subgroups have heterogeneous response to treatment (Funded by AstraZeneca). CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01994720.

Impact of regurgitation on health-related quality of life in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease before and after short-term potent acid suppression therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Limited data exist on the impact of regurgitation on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). We assessed the relationship between regurgitation frequency and HRQOL before and after acid suppression therapy in GORD. METHOD: We used data from two randomised trials of AZD0865 25-75 mg/day versus esomeprazole 20 or 40 mg/day in non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) (n=1415) or reflux oesophagitis (RO) (n=1460). The Reflux Disease Questionnaire was used to select patients with frequent and intense heartburn for inclusion and to assess treatment response. The Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD) questionnaire was used to assess HRQOL. RESULTS: At baseline, 93% of patients in both the NERD and RO groups experienced regurgitation. Mean QOLRAD scores were similar for NERD and RO at baseline and at week 4 and disclosed decremental HRQOL with increasing frequency of regurgitation; a clinically relevant difference of >0.5 in mean QOLRAD scores was seen with regurgitation ≥4 days/week versus <4 days/week. The prevalence of frequent, persistent regurgitation (≥4 days/week) at week 4 among heartburn responders (≤1 day/week of mild heartburn) was 28% in NERD and 23% in RO. QOLRAD scores were higher among heartburn responders. There was a similar pattern of impact related to regurgitation frequency in heartburn responders compared with the group as a whole. CONCLUSIONS: Frequent regurgitation was associated with a clinically relevant, incremental decline in HRQOL beyond that associated with heartburn before and after potent acid suppression in both NERD and RO. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBERS: NCT00206284 and NCT00206245.

Symptom profile in partial responders to a proton pump inhibitor compared with treatment-naïve patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease: a post hoc analysis of two study populations.

BACKGROUND: Partial response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy poses a healthcare challenge. This study aimed to compare symptom profiles in partial PPI responders and treatment-naïve patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). METHODS: A post hoc analysis of data from two studies was performed. Partial PPI responders with GERD (n = 580; NCT00703534) had frequent (≥ 3 days/week) heartburn and/or regurgitation despite PPI therapy; patients with no improvement were excluded. Treatment-naïve patients with GERD (diagnosed by endoscopy and pH-metry; n = 203; NCT00291746) had frequent (≥ 3 days/week) upper gastrointestinal symptoms. The Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) was completed by all patients at study entry and by treatment-naïve patients after PPI therapy. RESULTS: The highest (mean [95% confidence interval]) discomfort scores were reported in the Reflux (heartburn, regurgitation), Indigestion, and Abdominal pain domains of the GSRS, both in partial PPI responders (4.3 [4.2-4.4], 3.7 [3.6-3.8], and 3.4 [3.3-3.5], respectively) and in treatment-naïve patients (3.5 [3.3-3.7], 3.6 [3.4-3.7], and 3.1 [3.0-3.3], respectively). Partial PPI responders reported more discomfort than treatment-naïve patients in the Reflux, Abdominal pain, and Constipation domains (4.3 [4.2-4.4] vs. 3.5 [3.3-3.7], 3.4 [3.3-3.5] vs. 3.1 [3.0-3.3], and 2.5 [2.4-2.6] vs. 2.1 [1.9-2.2], respectively). All GSRS domain scores improved in treatment-naïve patients following PPI therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Symptom patterns in partial PPI responders were similar to those in treatment-naïve patients with GERD, but partial PPI responders experienced more severe reflux, abdominal pain, and constipation than did treatment-naïve patients.

Efficacy and safety of lesogaberan in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Lesogaberan (AZD3355) is a novel γ-aminobutyric acid B-type receptor agonist designed to treat gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) by inhibiting transient lower oesophageal sphincter relaxations. A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-centre phase IIb study was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of lesogaberan as an add-on to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in patients with GERD who are partially responsive to PPI therapy (ClinicalTrials.gov reference: NCT01005251). DESIGN: In total, 661 patients were randomised to receive 4 weeks of placebo or 60, 120, 180 or 240 mg of lesogaberan twice daily, in addition to ongoing PPI therapy. Symptoms were measured using the Reflux Symptom Questionnaire electronic Diary. Response to treatment was defined as having an average of ≥ 3 additional days per week of not more than mild GERD symptoms during treatment compared with baseline. RESULTS: In the primary analysis, 20.9%, 25.6%, 23.5% and 26.2% of patients responded to the 60, 120, 180 and 240 mg twice daily lesogaberan doses, respectively, and 17.9% responded to placebo. The response to the 240 mg twice daily dose was statistically significantly greater than the response to placebo using a one-sided test at the predefined significance level of p < 0.1. However, the absolute increases in the proportions of patients who responded to lesogaberan compared with placebo were low. Lesogaberan was generally well tolerated, although six patients receiving lesogaberan developed reversible elevated alanine transaminase levels. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with GERD symptoms partially responsive to PPI therapy, lesogaberan was only marginally superior to placebo in achieving an improvement in symptoms.

Esophageal mucosal breaks in gastroesophageal reflux disease partially responsive to proton pump inhibitor therapy.

OBJECTIVES: Approximately 20-30% of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) do not experience complete symptom resolution during proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of esophageal mucosal breaks among patients who have a partial response to PPI therapy. METHODS: This was an analysis of data from a phase 2b clinical trial carried out to assess the efficacy and safety of a reflux inhibitor, lesogaberan (AZD3355), as an add-on to PPI therapy in this patient population (clinicaltrials.gov reference: NCT01005251). A total of 661 patients with persistent GERD symptoms who had received a minimum of 4 weeks of PPI therapy were included in the study. The prevalence of esophageal mucosal breaks was assessed according to (i) the most recent endoscopy results from within the previous 24 months, if available ("historical" endoscopies), and (ii) the results of endoscopies performed at study baseline ("baseline" endoscopies). Baseline endoscopies were not carried out in patients who had a historical endoscopy showing an absence of esophageal mucosal breaks. RESULTS: Historical endoscopy results were available for 244 patients, of whom 48 (19.7%) had esophageal mucosal breaks. Baseline endoscopies were carried out in 465 patients, of whom 146 (31.4%) had esophageal mucosal breaks. Sensitivity analyses showed a prevalence of esophageal mucosal breaks of 20-30%. In both the historical and baseline endoscopies, most esophageal mucosal breaks were Los Angeles grades A or B. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with GERD symptoms partially responsive to PPI therapy, mild-to-moderate severity esophageal mucosal breaks are common (prevalence 20-30%), and may contribute to symptom etiology.

Development and validation of a patient-reported outcome instrument in partial responders to proton pump inhibitors.

OBJECTIVE: The Reflux Symptom Questionnaire 7-day recall (RESQ-7) was developed, in line with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines, to address the need for a patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument assessing symptoms specifically in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) who are only partially responsive to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The RESQ-7 was constructed using patient interviews and expert consensus. The instrument was psychometrically validated in a clinical trial setting in patients with persistent GERD symptoms despite PPI therapy. RESULTS: Evaluation of content validity yielded a 13-item structure for the RESQ-7, incorporating symptoms overlooked by existing GERD questionnaires, such as hoarseness, cough, difficulty swallowing and burping. Principal component analysis suggested a four-domain structure. All domains had a high inter-item correlation (Cronbach's α lower 95% confidence limits: 0.77-0.87 for intensity; 0.72-0.82 for frequency). Test-retest reliability was fair-to-good or excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient lower 95% confidence limits: 0.70-0.78 for intensity; 0.65-0.75 for frequency). Convergent and discriminant validity were confirmed by correlation comparisons with the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale. DISCUSSION: The RESQ-7 demonstrated good content validity and psychometric properties in patients with GERD and a partial response to PPIs. The weekly recall makes the RESQ-7 appropriate for use in routine clinical care. The authors believe that it is the first instrument to be developed specifically for patients with a partial response to PPI therapy in line with FDA guidelines on PROs (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00703534).

Cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor plus aspirin versus aspirin in acute ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack: an economic evaluation of the THALES trial.

Objective: THALES demonstrated that ticagrelor plus aspirin reduced the risk of stroke or death but increased bleeding versus aspirin during the 30 days following a mild-to-moderate acute non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke (AIS) or high-risk transient ischaemic attack (TIA). There are no cost-effectiveness analyses supporting this combination in Europe. To address this, a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. Methods: Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using a decision tree and Markov model with a short-term and long-term (30-year) horizon. Stroke, mortality, bleeding and EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) data from THALES were used to estimate short-term outcomes. Model transitions were based on stroke severity (disabling stroke was defined as modified Rankin Scale >2). Healthcare resource utilisation and EQ-5D data beyond 30 days were based on SOCRATES, another trial in AIS/TIA that compared ticagrelor with aspirin. Long-term costs, survival and disutilities were based on published literature. Unit costs were derived from national databases and discounted at 3% annually from a Swedish healthcare perspective. Results: One-month treatment with ticagrelor plus aspirin resulted in 12 fewer strokes, 4 additional major bleeds and cost savings of €95 000 per 1000 patients versus aspirin from a Swedish healthcare perspective. This translated into increased quality-adjusted life-years (0.04) and reduced societal costs (-€1358) per patient over a lifetime horizon. Key drivers of cost-effectiveness were number of patients experiencing subsequent disabling stroke and degree of disability. Findings were robust over a range of input assumptions. Conclusion: One month of treatment with ticagrelor plus aspirin is likely to improve outcomes and reduce costs versus aspirin in mild-to-moderate AIS or high-risk TIA. Trial registration number: NCT03354429.

Regurgitation is less responsive to acid suppression than heartburn in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Although most patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) achieve substantial symptom relief with acid suppression, many have some residual symptoms. We evaluated the responsiveness of regurgitation, characterized by the reflux disease questionnaire (RDQ) to potent acid suppression. METHODS: We analyzed data from 2 randomized controlled trials of AZD0865 (a potassium-competitive acid blocker) 25-75 mg/day vs esomeprazole 20-40 mg/day for the treatment of nonerosive reflux disease (NERD, n = 1460) or reflux esophagitis (RE, n = 1514). Inclusion criteria for both studies were high-severity substernal burning (≥4 days per week of at least moderate intensity) during the week before enrollment. Pooled data from all treatment arms were used to ascertain the response of the reflux disease questionnaire regurgitation items to potent acid suppression during the fourth week of treatment. RESULTS: When the study began, 93% of patients with NERD or RE had either "acid taste in the mouth" (regurgitation-taste) or "unpleasant movement of material upwards from the stomach" (regurgitation-movement). Either or both symptoms were present and severe in 53% of NERD (n = 717) and 54% of RE patients (n = 751) for the main study outcome. During week 4 of therapy, patients with severe "regurgitation-taste" and "regurgitation-movement" responded significantly less well than patients with NERD and high severity "substernal burning" (34% and 26% vs 49%) or those with RE (44% and 33% vs 55%). There were no differences in symptom response between patients with healed and nonhealed RE. CONCLUSIONS: Regurgitation was less responsive to acid suppression than heartburn in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease, indicating that persistent regurgitation is a common cause of incomplete treatment response.

Concomitant symptoms itemized in the Reflux Disease Questionnaire are associated with attenuated heartburn response to acid suppression.

OBJECTIVES: The Reflux Disease Questionnaire (RDQ) contains six symptom items for diagnosing and gauging gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) severity. However, clinical trials have generally focused only on the "substernal burning" item and limited data exist on the effect of concomitant items on the treatment response of "substernal burning". METHODS: Data from two large randomized trials of AZD0865 25-75 mg/day vs. esomeprazole 20 or 40 mg/day in patients with GERD defined by moderate to severe (≥ 4 days per week) "substernal burning" (non-erosive reflux disease (NERD), N = 1,460; reflux esophagitis (RE), N = 1,514) were re-analyzed. As no differences were found between drugs or doses in treatment response of "substernal burning", pooled data were used to determine the impact of additional RDQ items on the response of "substernal burning" to acid suppression. RESULTS: At baseline, patients reported an average of four RDQ items. "Substernal burning" was the most responsive to therapy in the 3.3% of individuals with this as their only baseline RDQ symptom. The report of any other RDQ item was associated with a reduction in the responsiveness of "substernal burning" to acid suppression (e.g., RE patients with high severity "dyspepsia-pain" had an odds ratio of 0.20 for an improvement in "substernal burning" to treatment). CONCLUSIONS: Other concomitant RDQ items, particularly "substernal pain" or "dyspepsia-pain", were associated with a reduced treatment effect of acid suppression on "substernal burning". These findings support the use of a more comprehensive assessment of disease state and treatment response in GERD trials and clinical practice.

A novel reflux inhibitor lesogaberan (AZD3355) as add-on treatment in patients with GORD with persistent reflux symptoms despite proton pump inhibitor therapy: a randomised placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: o evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of add-on treatment with lesogaberan (AZD3355), a novel reflux inhibitor, in patients with persistent gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) symptoms despite proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy. METHODS: double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, parallel-group, multicentre phase IIA study was carried out in outpatient clinics. The study group comprised 244 adult patients with persistent GORD symptoms (heartburn and/or regurgitation) of at least mild intensity and for 3 days of 7 days before enrolment, despite ≥6 weeks of continuous PPI therapy. Patients received either lesogaberan (65 mg twice daily) or placebo in addition to PPI therapy for a period of 4 weeks. Symptom intensity, based on the Reflux Disease Questionnaire, was recorded twice daily. Treatment response (defined as at most one 24 h period with heartburn or regurgitation of not more than mild intensity during the last 7 days of treatment). Time to response, proportion of symptom-free days and measures of tolerability were also analysed. RESULTS: total of 232 (114 lesogaberan- and 118 placebo-treated patients) of the 244 randomised patients were analysed for efficacy. Treatment with lesogaberan, compared with placebo, resulted in a significantly larger proportion of responders to treatment (16% vs 8% of patients; p=0.026) and cumulative proportion of responders over time (log-rank p=0.0195). Lesogaberan was well tolerated: adverse events of mostly mild to moderate intensity were reported in 45% of patients on lesogaberan and in 37% on placebo. CONCLUSIONS: esogaberan add-on therapy to PPIs significantly improved heartburn and regurgitation symptoms; however, the proportion of responders was small. Clinical trial number NCT00394472.

Time Course for Benefit and Risk of Ticagrelor and Aspirin in Acute Ischemic Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The goal of this work was to investigate the short-term time-course benefit and risk of ticagrelor with aspirin in acute mild-moderate ischemic stroke or high-risk TIA in The Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack Treated with Ticagrelor and ASA for Prevention of Stroke and Death (THALES) trial. METHODS: In an exploratory analysis of the THALES trial, we evaluated the cumulative incidence of irreversible efficacy and safety outcomes at different time points during the 30-day treatment period. The efficacy outcome was major ischemic events defined as a composite of ischemic stroke or nonhemorrhagic death. The safety outcome was major hemorrhage defined as a composite of intracranial hemorrhage and fatal bleedings. Net clinical impact was defined as the combination of these 2 endpoints. RESULTS: This analysis included a total of 11,016 patients (5,523 in the ticagrelor-aspirin group, 5,493 in the aspirin group) with a mean age of 65 years, and 39% were women. The reduction of major ischemic events by ticagrelor occurred in the first week (4.1% vs 5.3%; absolute risk reduction 1.15%, 95% CI 0.36%-1.94%) and remained throughout the 30-day treatment period. An increase in major hemorrhage was seen during the first week and remained relatively constant in the following weeks (absolute risk increase ≈0.3%). Cumulative analysis showed that the net clinical impact favored ticagrelor-aspirin in the first week (absolute risk reduction 0.97%, 95% CI, 0.17%-1.77%) and remained constant throughout the 30 days. DISCUSSION: In patients with mild-moderate ischemic stroke or high-risk TIA, the treatment effect of ticagrelor-aspirin was present from the first week. The ischemic benefit of ticagrelor-aspirin outweighs the risk of major hemorrhage throughout the treatment period, which may support the use of 30-day treatment with ticagrelor and aspirin in these patients. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that, for patients with mild-moderate ischemic stroke or high-risk TIA, the ischemic benefit of ticagrelor-aspirin outweighs the risk of major hemorrhage throughout the 30-day treatment period.