Impact of recurrent ischaemic and bleeding events on quality of life in patients with acute coronary syndrome: Insights from the FORCE-ACS registry.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remain at high risk for recurrent ischaemic and bleeding events during follow-up. Our study aimed to quantify and compare the impact of these adverse events on quality of life (QoL). METHODS: Data from patients with ACS prospectively enrolled in the FORCE-ACS registry between January 2015 and December 2019 were used for this study. The primary ischaemic and bleeding events of interest were hospital readmission for ACS and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2 or 3 bleeding during 12 months follow-up. QoL was measured using the EQ-5D Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score and the 12-item Short Form Survey version 2 derived Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Health Component Summary (MCS) scores at 12 months follow-up. RESULTS: In total, 3339 patients (mean age 66.8 years, 27.9% women) were included. During follow-up, ischaemic events occurred in 202 patients (6.0%) and bleeding events in 565 patients (16.9%). After adjustment for demographic and clinical characteristics, ischaemic events remained independently associated with lower QoL regardless of metric used. Bleeding was also independently associated with lower EQ-5D VAS and PCS scores, but not with a lower MCS score. The QoL decrement associated with ischaemic events was numerically larger than the decrement associated with bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Ischaemic and bleeding events remain prevalent and are independently associated with lower QoL at 12 months follow-up in patients previously admitted for ACS. The incidence and impact of these adverse events should be considered when balancing individual ischaemic and bleeding risks.

Effects of CYP3A4*22 and CYP3A5 on clinical outcome in patients treated with ticagrelor for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: POPular Genetics sub-study.

Aims: To determine the clinical efficacy, adverse events and side-effect dyspnea of CYP3A4*22 and CYP3A5 expressor status in ticagrelor treated patients. Methods and results: Ticagrelor treated patients from the POPular Genetics randomized controlled trial were genotyped for CYP3A4*22 and CYP3A5*3 alleles. Patients were divided based on their genotype. In total 1,281 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were included. CYP3A4*22 carriers (n = 152) versus CYP3A4*22 non-carrier status (n = 1,129) were not found to have a significant correlation with the primary thrombotic endpoint: cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis and stroke [1.3% vs. 2.5%, adjusted hazard ratio 1.81 (0.43-7.62) p = 0.42], or the primary bleeding endpoint: PLATO major and minor bleeding [13.2% vs. 11.3%, adjusted hazard ratio 0.93 (0.58-1.50) p = 0.77]. Among the CYP3A4*1/*1 patients, CYP3A5 expressors (n = 196) versus non-expressors (n = 926) did not show a significant difference for the primary thrombotic [2.6% vs. 2.5%, adjusted hazard ratio 1.03 (0.39-2.71) p = 0.95], or the primary bleeding endpoint [12.8% vs. 10.9%, adjusted hazard ratio 1.13 (0.73-1.76) p = 0.58]. With respect to dyspnea, no significant difference was observed between CYP3A4*22 carriers versus CYP3A4*22 non-carriers [44.0% vs. 45.0%, odds ratio 1.04 (0.45-2.42) p = 0.93], or in the CYP3A4*1/*1 group, CYP3A5 expressors versus CYP3A5 non-expressors [35.3% vs. 47.8%, odds ratio 0.60 (0.27-1.30) p = 0.20]. Conclusion: In STEMI patients treated with ticagrelor, neither the CYP3A4*22 carriers, nor the CYP3A5 expressor status had a statistical significant effect on thrombotic and bleeding event rates nor on dyspnea. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01761786.

External validation of the GRACE risk score and the risk-treatment paradox in patients with acute coronary syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: To validate the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk score and examine the extent and impact of the risk-treatment paradox in contemporary patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS: Data from 5015 patients with ACS enrolled in the FORCE-ACS registry between January 2015 and December 2019 were used for model validation. The performance of the GRACE risk score for predicting in-hospital and 1-year mortality was evaluated based on indices of model discrimination and calibration. Differences in the delivery of guideline-recommended care among patients who survived hospitalisation (n=4911) per GRACE risk stratum were assessed and the association with postdischarge mortality was examined. RESULTS: Discriminative power of the GRACE risk score was good for predicting in-hospital (c-statistic: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.83 to 0.90) and 1-year mortality (c-statistic: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.79 to 0.84). However, the GRACE risk score overestimated the absolute in-hospital and 1-year mortality risk (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test p<0.01). Intermediate-risk and high-risk patients were 12% and 29% less likely to receive optimal guideline-recommended care compared with low-risk patients, respectively. Optimal guideline-recommended care was associated with lower mortality in intermediate- and high-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: The GRACE risk score identified patients at higher risk for in-hospital and 1-year mortality, but overestimated absolute risk levels in contemporary patients. Optimal guideline-recommended care was associated with lower mortality in intermediate-risk and high-risk patients, but was less likely to be delivered with increasing mortality risk.