P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy versus dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing coronary stenting: rationale and design of the NEOMINDSET Trial

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is currently the standard of care after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recent studies suggest that reducing DAPT to 1-3 months followed by an aspirin-free single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) strategy with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor is safe and associated with less bleeding. However, to date, no randomised trial has tested the impact of initiating SAPT immediately after PCI, particularly in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). NEOMINDSET is a multicentre, randomised, open-label trial with a blinded outcome assessment designed to compare SAPT versus DAPT in 3,400 ACS patients undergoing PCI with the latest-generation drug-eluting stents (DES). After successful PCI and up to 4 days following hospital admission, patients are randomised to receive SAPT with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor (ticagrelor or prasugrel) or DAPT (aspirin plus a potent P2Y12 inhibitor) for 12 months. Aspirin is discontinued immediately after randomisation in the SAPT group. The choice between ticagrelor and prasugrel is at the investigator's discretion. The primary hypothesis is that SAPT will be non-inferior to DAPT with respect to the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction or urgent target vessel revascularisation, but superior to DAPT on rates of bleeding defined by Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3 or 5 criteria. NEOMINDSET is the first study that is specifically designed to test SAPT versus DAPT immediately following PCI with DES in ACS patients. This trial will provide important insights on the efficacy and safety of withdrawing aspirin in the early phase of ACS.

P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy versus dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing coronary stenting: rationale and design of the NEOMINDSET Trial.

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is currently the standard of care after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recent studies suggest that reducing DAPT to 1-3 months followed by an aspirin-free single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) strategy with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor is safe and associated with less bleeding. However, to date, no randomised trial has tested the impact of initiating SAPT immediately after PCI, particularly in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). NEOMINDSET is a multicentre, randomised, open-label trial with a blinded outcome assessment designed to compare SAPT versus DAPT in 3,400 ACS patients undergoing PCI with the latest-generation drug-eluting stents (DES). After successful PCI and up to 4 days following hospital admission, patients are randomised to receive SAPT with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor (ticagrelor or prasugrel) or DAPT (aspirin plus a potent P2Y12 inhibitor) for 12 months. Aspirin is discontinued immediately after randomisation in the SAPT group. The choice between ticagrelor and prasugrel is at the investigator's discretion. The primary hypothesis is that SAPT will be non-inferior to DAPT with respect to the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction or urgent target vessel revascularisation, but superior to DAPT on rates of bleeding defined by Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3 or 5 criteria. NEOMINDSET is the first study that is specifically designed to test SAPT versus DAPT immediately following PCI with DES in ACS patients. This trial will provide important insights on the efficacy and safety of withdrawing aspirin in the early phase of ACS. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04360720).

Ticagrelor monotherapy in patients with concomitant diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease: a post hoc analysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with both diabetes mellitus (DM) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are a subpopulation characterized by ultrahigh ischemic and bleeding risk after percutaneous coronary intervention. There are limited data on the impact of ticagrelor monotherapy among these patients. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of the GLOBAL-LEADERS trial, the treatment effects of the experimental (one-month dual-antiplatelet therapy [DAPT] followed by 23-month ticagrelor monotherapy) versus the reference regimen (12-month DAPT followed by 12-month aspirin alone) were analyzed according to DM/CKD status. The primary endpoint was a composite endpoint of all-cause death or new Q-wave myocardial infarction at 2-years. The patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE) was defined as the composite of all-cause death, any stroke, site-reported MI and any revascularization, whereas net adverse clinical events (NACE) combined POCE with BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding events. RESULTS: At 2 years, the DM + /CKD + patients had significantly higher incidences of the primary endpoint (9.5% versus 3.1%, adjusted HR 2.16; 95% CI [1.66-2.80], p < 0.001), BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding events, stroke, site-reported myocardial infraction, all revascularization, POCE, and NACE, compared with the DM-/CKD- patients. Among the DM + /CKD + patients, after adjustment, there were no significant differences in the primary endpoints between the experimental and reference regimen; however, the experimental regimen was associated with lower rates of POCE (20.6% versus 25.9%, HR 0.74; 95% CI [0.55-0.99], p = 0.043, pinteraction = 0.155) and NACE (22.7% versus 28.3%, HR 0.75; 95% CI [0.56-0.99], p = 0.044, pinteraction = 0.310), which was mainly driven by a lower rate of all revascularization, as compared with the reference regimen. The landmark analysis showed that while the experimental and reference regimen had similar rates of all the clinical endpoints during the first year, the experimental regimen was associated with significantly lower rates of POCE (5.8% versus 11.0%, HR 0.49; 95% CI [0.29-0.82], p = 0.007, pinteraction = 0.040) and NACE (5.8% versus 11.2%, HR 0.48; 95% CI [0.29-0.82], p = 0.007, pinteraction = 0.013) in the second year. CONCLUSION: Among patients with both DM and CKD, ticagrelor monotherapy was not associated with lower rates of all-cause death or new Q-wave, or major bleeding complications; however, it was associated with lower rates of POCE and NACE. These findings should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01813435).

Standardized classification and framework for reporting, interpreting, and analysing medication non-adherence in cardiovascular clinical trials: a consensus report from the Non-adherence Academic Research Consortium (NARC)

Non-adherence has been well recognized for years to be a common issue that significantly impacts clinical outcomes and health care costs. Medication adherence is remarkably low even in the controlled environment of clinical trials where it has potentially complex major implications. Collection of non-adherence data diverge markedly among cardiovascular randomized trials and, even where collected, is rarely incorporated in the statistical analysis to test the consistency of the primary endpoint(s). The imprecision introduced by the inconsistent assessment of non-adherence in clinical trials might confound the estimate of the calculated efficacy of the study drug. Hence, clinical trials may not accurately answer the scientific question posed by regulators, who seek an accurate estimate of the true efficacy and safety of treatment, or the question posed by payers, who want a reliable estimate of the effectiveness of treatment in the marketplace after approval. The Non-adherence Academic Research Consortium is a collaboration among leading academic research organizations, representatives from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and physician-scientists from the USA and Europe. One in-person meeting was held in Madrid, Spain, culminating in a document describing consensus recommendations for reporting, collecting, and analysing adherence endpoints across clinical trials. The adoption of these recommendations will afford robustness and consistency in the comparative safety and effectiveness evaluation of investigational drugs from early development to post-marketing approval studies. These principles may be useful for regulatory assessment, as well as for monitoring local and regional outcomes to guide quality improvement initiatives.(AU)

Anatomical and physiologic assessments in patients with small coronary artery disease: final results of the physiologic and anatomical evaluation prior to and after stent implantation in small coronary vessels (PHANTOM) trial

Patients with small coronary arteries are at high risk for complications after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The objective of our study was to investigate the correlation between angiography, intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), and fractional flow reserve (FFR) in patients with moderate stenoses in small (b2.8 mm) coronary arteries. Methods and Results Sixty consecutive patients, of 800 scheduled for PCI during the study period, were prospectively enrolled in the study. The FFR was measured after a 2-minute infusion of adenosine. For the preprocedural assessments, 60 patients underwent an FFR measurement, 56 underwent an IVUS, and 60 underwent an angiography; for the postprocedural assessments, 22 patients underwent an FFR measurement, 18 underwent an IVUS, and 22 underwent an angiography. The jeopardy score for the target vessel was calculated. Data were analyzed by an independent core laboratory. Patients with an FFR N0.75 were deferred from PCI. Patients were stratified in 2 groups according to their FFR values (V0.75 vs N0.75) and were followed for 1 year. Significant (FFR V0.75) coronary stenosis was observed in only 35% of the patients. The mean preprocedural FFR values were 0.79 F 0.13 for the overall population, 0.64 F 0.08 for the patients with an FFR V0.75, and 0.87 F 0.06 for the patients with an FFR N0.75. There was no correlation between angiography, IVUS, and FFR. The jeopardy score was inversely correlated with FFR (R = 0.32). Only a third of the patients with optimal stenting defined by IVUS achieved an FFR N0.90. After 1 year, 24% of the patients with an FFR V0.75 required a repeat PCI. There was no occurrence of myocardial infarction or death, and only 2.6% of the patients deferred from PCI required revascularization. Conclusion Anatomical parameters are limited in determining the hemodynamic significance of small coronary disease. Most moderate stenoses in small coronaries could be safely deferred from PCI based on FFR