Novel approaches in primary cardiovascular disease prevention: the HOPE-3 trial rationale, design, and participants' baseline characteristics

AbstractBACKGROUND:Cholesterol and blood pressure (BP) can be effectively and safely lowered with statin drugs and BP-lowering drugs, reducing major cardiovascular (CV) events by 20%-30% within 5 years in high-risk individuals. However, there are limited data in lower-risk populations. The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation-3 (HOPE-3) trial is evaluating whether cholesterol lowering with a statin drug, BP lowering with low doses of 2 antihypertensive agents, and their combination safely reduce major CV events in individuals at intermediate risk who have had no previous vascular events and have average cholesterol and BP levels.METHODS:A total of 12,705 women 65 years or older and men 55 years or older with at least 1 CV risk factor, no known CV disease, and without any clear indication or contraindication to the study drugs were randomized to rosuvastatin 10 mg/d or placebo and to candesartan/hydrochlorothiazide 16/12.5 mg/d or placebo (2 × 2 factorial design) and will be followed for a mean of 5.8 years. The coprimary study outcomes are the composite of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), and nonfatal stroke and the composite of CV death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, resuscitated cardiac arrest, heart failure, and arterial revascularization.RESULTS:Participants were recruited from 21 countries in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Mean age at randomization was 66 years and 46% were women.CONCLUSIONS:The HOPE-3 trial will provide new information on cholesterol and BP lowering in intermediate-risk populations with average cholesterol and BP levels and is expected to inform approaches to primary prevention worldwide (HOPE-3 ClinicalTrials.govNCT00468923).

The Organization to Assess Strategies for Ischemic Syndromes (OASIS) registry in patients with unstable angina.

Clinical approaches to the prevention of the potentially catastrophic consequences of coronary ischemic phenomena such as unstable angina and suspected non-Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI) differ across the world. In addition to prevailing physician beliefs in different societies, the level of access to catheterization laboratories largely determines whether an interventionist or conservative strategy is adopted. The Organization to Assess Strategies for Ischemic Syndromes (OASIS)--a prospective registry of approximately 8,000 patients with acute myocardial ischemia with no ST elevation, treated in 95 hospitals across 6 countries--furnished a unique window into regional differences in clinical management and the frequency and timing of invasive procedures (i.e., angiography, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty [PTCA], and coronary artery bypass graft [CABG] surgery), as well as the outcomes of these trends. At 6 months after symptom onset, patients in the United States and Brazil, where the catheterization laboratory facilities are more accessible, underwent significantly (p <0.001) more angiography (69.4%), PTCA (23.6%), and CABG (25.2%) than in Canada and Australia, where the corresponding rates were 48.4%, 17.0%, and 16.8% (p <0.001), respectively; and in Hungary and Poland, where the respective rates were 23.5%, 5.8%, and 10.9% (p <0.001). This relatively aggressive approach led at 6 months to a more substantial decrease in refractory angina in the United States and Brazil than in Canada and Australia (20.4% vs 13.9%; p <0.001), but no improvement in rates of cardiovascular mortality and MI (10.5% versus 10.5%; p = 0.36). There was a significant (p < or = 0.012) increase in stroke, (1.9% vs 1.3%; p = 0.010) and major bleeding (1.9% vs 1.1%; p = 0.009) events. Furthermore, an inverse correlation emerged between baseline cardiovascular risk status and frequency of angiography and PTCA interventions preferentially for low-risk compared with high-risk patients. In concert with findings from other recent randomized trials, the OASIS Registry data suggest that although there are fewer hospital readmissions for unstable angina, there is a trend toward increased rates of death, MI, and stroke. These data urge a cautious approach to the use of invasive procedures in patients with unstable angina unless future trials demonstrate a clear benefit with an aggressive approach.

Variations between countries in invasive cardiac procedures and outcomes in patients with suspected unstable angina or myocardial infarction without initial ST elevation. OASIS (Organisation to Assess Strategies for Ischaemic Syndromes) Registry Investigators.

BACKGROUND: There are wide variations between countries in the use of invasive cardiac catheterisation and revascularisation procedures for patients with acute ischaemic syndromes. We studied the relation between rates of such procedures and rates of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, refractory angina, and major bleeding in a prospective, registry-based study in six countries with widely varying intervention rates. METHODS: 7987 consecutive patients presenting with unstable angina or suspected myocardial infarction without ST-segment elevation were recruited prospectively from 95 hospitals in six countries and followed up for 6 months. FINDINGS: The rates of all procedures were highest in patients in Brazil and the USA, intermediate in Canada and Australia, and lowest in Hungary and Poland. There were no significant differences in rates of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction among these countries (4.7% overall [range 3.7-5.6] at 7 days; 11% overall [9-12] at 6 months). For the countries with the highest rates of invasive procedures (59%) versus the rest (21%) there was no difference in rate of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction (adjusted odds ratio 0.88 at 7 days and 1.0 at 6 months). Rates of stroke were higher in Brazil and the USA than in the countries with lower intervention rates (adjusted odds ratio at 7 days 3.0, p=0.012; at 6 months 1.8, p=0.004) but rates of refractory angina at 7 days (0.7, p<0.001) and readmission for unstable angina at 6 months were lower (0.70, 0.63; both p<0.001). Comparison of results for hospitals without cardiac-catheterisation facilities and for those with such facilities gave adjusted odds ratios for cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 6 months of 0.83 (10.6% vs 12.5%, p=0.05) and for refractory angina of 1.25 (19.3% vs 16.1%, p=0.09). INTERPRETATION: Higher rates of invasive and revascularisation procedures were associated with lower rates of refractory angina or readmission for unstable angina, no apparent reduction in cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction, but with higher rates of stroke. Randomised trials should assess the relative impact of conservative and more aggressive approaches to invasive cardiac procedures and revascularisations in patients with unstable angina.