Efficacy and safety of trimetazidine after percutaneous coronary intervention (ATPCI): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Angina might persist or reoccur despite successful revascularisation with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and antianginal therapy. Additionally, PCI in stable patients has not been shown to improve survival compared with optimal medical therapy. Trimetazidine is an antianginal agent that improves energy metabolism of the ischaemic myocardium and might improve outcomes and symptoms of patients who recently had a PCI. In this study, we aimed to assess the long-term potential benefits and safety of trimetazidine added to standard evidence-based medical treatment in patients who had a recent successful PCI. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial of trimetazidine added to standard background therapy in patients who had undergone successful PCI at 365 centres in 27 countries across Europe, South America, Asia, and north Africa. Eligible patients were aged 21-85 years and had had either elective PCI for stable angina or urgent PCI for unstable angina or non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction less than 30 days before randomisation. Patients were randomly assigned by an interactive web response system to oral trimetazidine 35 mg modified-release twice daily or matching placebo. Participants, study investigators, and all study staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of cardiac death; hospital admission for a cardiac event; recurrence or persistence of angina requiring an addition, switch, or increase of the dose of at least one antianginal drug; or recurrence or persistence of angina requiring a coronary angiography. Efficacy analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. Safety was assessed in all patients who had at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2010-022134-89). FINDINGS: From Sept 17, 2014, to June 15, 2016, 6007 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either trimetazidine (n=2998) or placebo (n=3009). After a median follow-up of 47·5 months (IQR 42·3-53·3), incidence of primary endpoint events was not significantly different between the trimetazidine group (700 [23·3%] patients) and the placebo group (714 [23·7%]; hazard ratio 0·98 [95% CI 0·88-1·09], p=0·73). When analysed individually, there were no significant differences in the incidence of the components of the primary endpoint between the treatment groups. Similar results were obtained when patients were categorised according to whether they had an elective or urgent PCI. 1219 (40·9%) of 2983 patients in the trimetazidine group and 1230 (41·1%) of 2990 patients in the placebo group had serious treatment-emergent adverse events. Frequencies of adverse events of interest were similar between the groups. INTERPRETATION: Our results show that the routine use of oral trimetazidine 35 mg twice daily over several years in patients receiving optimal medical therapy, after successful PCI, does not influence the recurrence of angina or the outcome; these findings should be taken into account when considering the place of trimetazidine in clinical practice. However, the long-term prescription of this treatment does not appear to be associated with any statistically significant safety concerns in the population studied. FUNDING: Servier.

Rationale, design, and baseline characteristics of the CLARIFY registry of outpatients with stable coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: Despite major advances in prevention and treatment, coronary artery disease (CAD) remains the leading cause of death worldwide. Whereas many sources of data are available on the epidemiology of acute coronary syndromes, fewer datasets reflect the contemporary management and outcomes of stable CAD patients. HYPOTHESIS: A worldwide contemporary registry would improve our knowledge about stable CAD. The main objectives are to describe the demographics, clinical profile, contemporary management and outcomes of outpatients with stable CAD; to identify gaps between evidence and treatment; and to investigate long-term prognostic determinants. METHODS: CLARIFY (ProspeCtive observational LongitudinAl RegIstry oF patients with stable coronary arterY disease) is an ongoing international observational longitudinal registry. Stable CAD patients from 45 countries in Europe, Asia, America, Middle East, Australia and Africa were enrolled between November 2009 and June 2010. The inclusion criteria were previous myocardial infarction, evidence of coronary stenosis >50%, proven symptomatic myocardial ischemia or prior revascularization procedure. The main exclusion criteria were serious non-cardiovascular disease, conditions interfering with life expectancy or severe other cardiovascular disease (including advanced heart failure). Follow-up visits were planned annually for up to 5 years, interspersed with 6-month telephone calls. RESULTS: Of the 32,703 patients enrolled, most (77.6%) were male, age (mean ± SD) was 64.2 ± 10.5 years, and 71.0% were receiving treatment for hypertension; mean ± SD resting heart rate was 68.2 ± 10.6 bpm. Patients were enrolled based on a history of myocardial infarction >3 months earlier (57.7%), having at least one stenosis >50% on coronary angiography (61.1%), proven symptomatic myocardial ischemia on non-invasive testing (23.1%), or history of percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft (69.8%). Baseline characteristics were similar across the four subgroups identified by the four inclusion criteria. CONCLUSION: CLARIFY will provide a useful resource for understanding the current epidemiology of stable CAD.

Effect of Combining Ivabradine and ß-Blockers: Focus on the Use of Carvedilol in the SHIFT Population.

OBJECTIVES: We explored the prescription of ß-blockers with ivabradine in patients with systolic heart failure, focusing on the most frequently coprescribed ß-blocker, carvedilol. METHODS: We analyzed outcomes in SHIFT patients with systolic heart failure who were prescribed ß-blockers (carvedilol, bisoprolol, metoprolol, or nebivolol) with ivabradine or placebo. Analysis was by intention to treat in patients prescribed a ß-blocker at the time of the event. RESULTS: Data were available for 2,596 patients receiving carvedilol, 1,483 bisoprolol, 1,424 metoprolol, and 197 nebivolol. Mean treatment duration was 19 months. There was no difference in the effect of ivabradine on the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization between the various ß-blockers [hazard ratios (HR) for risk reduction, 0.75-0.89; p for interaction=0.86]. Patients prescribed carvedilol with ivabradine had lower rates of primary composite endpoint (HR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.68-0.94), heart failure hospitalization (HR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.61-0.88), and cardiovascular hospitalization (HR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.69-0.92) versus carvedilol with placebo. The dosage of carvedilol had no detectable effect and there were no unexpected safety issues. CONCLUSIONS: Whatever ß-blocker was coprescribed with ivabradine, there were improvements in cardiovascular outcomes in patients with systolic heart failure, especially with the most prescribed ß-blocker--carvedilol.

Geographical variations in the prevalence and management of cardiovascular risk factors in outpatients with CAD: Data from the contemporary CLARIFY registry.

AIM: To determine the current prevalence and control of major cardiovascular risk factors in stable CAD outpatients worldwide. METHODS: We analysed variations in cardiovascular risk factors in stable CAD outpatients from CLARIFY, a 5-year observational longitudinal cohort study, in seven geographical zones (Western/Central Europe; Canada/South Africa/Australia/UK; Eastern Europe; Central/South America; Middle East; East Asia; and India). RESULTS: Patient presentation (N=32,954, mean age 64.2 years, 78% male) varied between zones, as did prevalence of risk factors (all p < 0.0001). Obesity ranged from 20% (East Asia) to 42% (Middle East), raised blood pressure from 28% (Central/South America and East Asia) to 48% (Eastern Europe), raised LDL cholesterol from 24% (Canada/South Africa/Australia/UK) to 65% (Eastern Europe), elevated heart rate (≥70 bpm) from 38% (Western/Central Europe) to 78% (India), diabetes from 17% (Eastern Europe) to 60% (Middle East), and smoking from 6% (Central/South America) to 19% (Eastern Europe). Aspirin and lipid-lowering drugs were widely used everywhere (≥84% and ≥88%, respectively). Rates of risk factor control varied geographically (all p < 0.0001). Rate of controlled blood pressure in hypertension varied from 47% (Eastern Europe) to 66% (Central/South America), glucose control in diabetes from 23% (India) to 51% (Western/Central Europe and East Asia), controlled LDL cholesterol and dyslipidaemia from 32% (Eastern Europe) to 75% (Canada/South Africa/Australia/UK), heart rate <70 bpm from 22% (India) to 62% (Western/Central Europe), and heart rate ≤60 bpm in angina patients from 2% (India) to 29% (Canada/South Africa/Australia/UK and Central/South America). CONCLUSION: Prevalence and control of major cardiovascular risk factors in stable CAD vary markedly worldwide. Many stable CAD outpatients are being treated suboptimally.

Ivabradine in Stable Coronary Artery Diseasewithout Clinical Heart Failure

An elevated heart rate is an established marker of cardiovascular risk. Previous analyseshave suggested that ivabradine, a heart-rate–reducing agent, may improve outcomesin patients with stable coronary artery disease, left ventricular dysfunction,and a heart rate of 70 beats per minute or more.METHODSWe conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ivabradine,added to standard background therapy, in 19,102 patients who had both stablecoronary artery disease without clinical heart failure and a heart rate of 70 beats perminute or more (including 12,049 patients with activity-limiting angina [class ≥II onthe Canadian Cardiovascular Society scale, which ranges from I to IV, with higherclasses indicating greater limitations on physical activity owing to angina]). Werandomly assigned patients to placebo or ivabradine, at a dose of up to 10 mg twicedaily, with the dose adjusted to achieve a target heart rate of 55 to 60 beats perminute. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiovascularcauses or nonfatal myocardial infarction.RESULTSAt 3 months, the mean (±SD) heart rate of the patients was 60.7±9.0 beats per minutein the ivabradine group versus 70.6±10.1 beats per minute in the placebo group.After a median follow-up of 27.8 months, there was no significant difference betweenthe ivabradine group and the placebo group in the incidence of the primaryend point (6.8% and 6.4%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval,0.96 to 1.20; P=0.20), nor were there significant differences in the incidences ofdeath from cardiovascular causes and nonfatal myocardial infarction. Ivabradinewas associated with an increase in the incidence of the primary end point amongpatients with activity-limiting angina but not among those without activity-limitingangina (P=0.02 for interaction). The incidence of bradycardia was higher with ivabradinethan with placebo (18.0% vs. 2.3%, P<0.001)...