The Efficacy and Tolerability of Irbesartan/Amlodipine Combination Therapy in Patients With Essential Hypertension Whose Blood Pressure Were not Controlled by Irbesartan Monotherapy.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of irbesartan (IRB) and amlodipine (AML) combination therapy in patients with essential hypertension whose blood pressure (BP) was not controlled by IRB monotherapy. METHODS: Two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III studies were conducted in Korea (the I-DUO 301 study and the I-DUO 302 study). After a 4-week run-in period with either 150 mg IRB (I-DUO 301 study) or 300 mg IRB (I-DUO 302 study), patients with uncontrolled BP (ie, mean sitting systolic BP [MSSBP] ≥140 mmHg to <180 mmHg and mean sitting diastolic BP <110 mmHg) were randomized to the placebo, AML 5 mg, or AML 10 mg group. A total of 428 participants were enrolled in the 2 I-DUO studies. In the I-DUO 301 study, 271 participants were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive either IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, or IRB 150 mg/placebo. In the I-DUO 302 study, 157 participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive IRB/AML 300/5 mg or IRB 300 mg/placebo. The primary endpoint was the change in MSSBP from baseline to week 8. Tolerability was assessed according to the development of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and clinically significant changes in physical examination, laboratory tests, pulse, and 12-lead electrocardiography. FINDINGS: In I-DUO 301, the mean (SD) changes of MSSBP at week 8 from baseline were -14.78 (12.35) mmHg, -21.47 (12.78) mmHg, and -8.61 (12.19) mmHg in the IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, and IRB 150 mg/placebo groups, respectively. In I-DUO 302, the mean (SD) changes of MSSBP at week 8 from baseline were -13.30 (12.47) mmHg and -7.19 (15.37) mmHg in the IRB/AML 300/5 mg and IRB 300 mg/placebo groups, respectively. In both studies, all combination groups showed a significantly higher reduction in MSSBP than the IRB monotherapy groups (P < 0.001 for both). TEAEs occurred in 10.00%, 10.99%, and 12.22% of participants in the IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, and IRB 150 mg/placebo groups, respectively, in I-DUO 301 and in 6.33% and 10.67% of participants in the IRB/AML 300/5 mg and IRB 300 mg/placebo groups, respectively, in I-DUO 302, with no significant between-group differences. Overall, there was one serious adverse event throughout I-DUO study. IMPLICATIONS: The combination of IRB and AML has superior antihypertensive effects compared with IRB alone over an 8-week treatment period, with placebo-like tolerability. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05476354 (I-DUO 301), NCT05475665 (I-DUO 302).

Intravascular Imaging-Guided Optimization of Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention by Sex: A Subgroup Analysis of the RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI Trial.

Importance: There have been heterogeneous results related to sex differences in prognosis after percutaneous coronary artery intervention (PCI) for complex coronary artery lesions. Objective: To evaluate potential differences in outcomes with intravascular imaging-guided PCI of complex coronary artery lesions between women and men. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prespecified substudy evaluates the interaction of sex in the investigator-initiated, open-label, multicenter RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI randomized clinical trial, which demonstrated the superiority of intravascular imaging-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI in patients with complex coronary artery lesions. The trial was conducted at 20 sites in Korea. Patients with complex coronary artery lesions undergoing PCI were enrolled between May 2018 and May 2021, and the median (IQR) follow-up period was 2.1 (1.4-3.0) years. Data were analyzed from December 2022 to December 2023. Interventions: After diagnostic coronary angiography, eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive intravascular imaging-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI. The choice and timing of the intravascular imaging device were left to the operators' discretion. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was target vessel failure, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization. Secondary end points included individual components of the primary end point. Results: Of 1639 included patients, 339 (20.7%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 65.6 (10.2) years. There was no difference in the risk of the primary end point between women and men (9.4% vs 8.3%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.39; 95% CI, 0.89-2.18; P = .15). Intravascular imaging-guided PCI tended to have lower incidence of the primary end point than angiography-guided PCI in both women (5.2% vs 14.5%; adjusted HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.15-0.78; P = .01) and men (8.3% vs 11.7%; adjusted HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.49-1.05; P = .09) without significant interaction (P for interaction = .86). Conclusions and Relevance: In patients undergoing complex PCI, compared with angiographic guidance, intravascular imaging guidance was associated with similar reduction in the risk of target vessel failure among women and men. The treatment benefit of intravascular imaging-guided PCI showed no significant interaction between treatment strategy and sex. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03381872.

Evidence-Based Guideline for the Treatment of Smoking Cessation Provided by the National Health Insurance Service in Korea.

Although major countries, such as South Korea, have developed and disseminated national smoking cessation guidelines, these efforts have been limited to developing individual societies or specialized institution-based recommendations. Therefore, evidence-based clinical guidelines are essential for developing smoking cessation interventions and promoting effective smoking cessation treatments. This guideline targets frontline clinical practitioners involved in a smoking cessation treatment support program implemented in 2015 with the support of the National Health Insurance Service. The Guideline Development Group of 10 multidisciplinary smoking cessation experts employed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT approach to review recent domestic and international research and guidelines and to determine evidence levels using the GRADE methodology. The guideline panel formulated six strong recommendations and one conditional recommendation regarding pharmacotherapy choices among general and special populations (mental disorders and chronic obstructive lung disease [COPD]). Strong recommendations favor varenicline rather than a nicotine patch or bupropion, using varenicline even if they are not ready to quit, using extended pharmacotherapy (>12 weeks) rather than standard treatment (8-12 weeks), or using pharmacotherapy for individuals with mental disorders or COPD. The conditional recommendation suggests combining varenicline with a nicotine patch instead of using varenicline alone. Aligned with the Korean Society of Medicine's clinical guideline development process, this is South Korea's first domestic smoking cessation treatment guideline that follows standardized guidelines. Primarily focusing on pharmacotherapy, it can serve as a foundation for comprehensive future smoking cessation clinical guidelines, encompassing broader treatment topics beyond medications.

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus medical therapy in stable angina: a matched cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: It is uncertain whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in addition to optimal medical therapy (OMT) can reduce adverse clinical events in the long term as compared with OMT alone in patients with pure stable angina. METHODS: We enrolled patients from 2006 to 2010 using the Korean national insurance data. 58 742 patients with pure stable angina with no history of myocardial infarction (MI) nor PCI were candidate, and finally, 5673 patients in the PCI plus OMT group and 5673 in the OMT alone group were selected with 1:1 propensity matching. They were followed up for 9.3 years. RESULTS: Primary endpoint, a composite of MI, stroke and cardiac death rate was significantly higher in the PCI group than in the OMT group, 13.5/1000 vs 11.5/1000 person-year with HR of 1.18 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.32, p=0.003). Individual event rate of MI and cardiac death rate was higher in the PCI group than in the OMT group at 9.3 years, 2.9 vs 2.1 (HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.7, p=0.009) and 4.8 vs 3.4/1000 person-year (HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.69, p=0.001), respectively. Revascularisation and total death occurred more in the PCI group as compared with the OMT group, 30.3 vs 8.2 (HR 3.64, 95% CI 3.27 to 4.05, p<0.001) and 13.5 vs 10.6/1000 person-year (HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.40, p<0.001), respectively. In subgroup analysis, the same trend of more event in the PCI group was detected. CONCLUSIONS: PCI plus OMT was associated with higher rate of primary endpoint of MI, stroke, cardiac death as compared with OMT alone in patients with pure stable angina at 9.3-year follow-up in large population.

Nighttime administration of antihypertensive medication: a review of chronotherapy in hypertension.

Hypertension remains a global health concern because of suboptimal blood pressure control despite advancements in antihypertensive treatments. Chronotherapy, defined as evening or bedtime administration of medication based on biological rhythms, is emerging as a potential strategy to improve blood pressure control and treatment outcomes. Clinical trials have investigated the potential effects of nighttime administration of antihypertensive medication in the improvement of 24 hours blood pressure control and reduction of cardiovascular risk. Implementing chronotherapy in clinical practice could have significant implications in enhancing blood pressure control and improving clinical outcomes in patients with hypertension, particularly those with resistant hypertension. However, recent trials have reported contradictory results, causing confusion in real-world practice. Herein we review, analyze, and critique the current evidence and propose suggestions regarding the clinical application and future directions of chronotherapy.

Clinical Benefit of Intravascular Imaging Compared With Conventional Angiography in Left Main Coronary Artery Intervention.

BACKGROUND: The RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI (Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravascular Imaging Guidance Versus Angiography-Guidance on Clinical Outcomes After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) demonstrated that intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improved clinical outcome compared with angiography-guided PCI for patients with complex coronary artery lesions. This study aims to assess whether the prognostic benefit of intravascular imaging-guided procedural optimization persists in patients undergoing PCI for left main coronary artery disease. METHODS: Of 1639 patients enrolled in the RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI, 192 patients with left main coronary artery disease were selected for the current prespecified substudy. Selected patients were randomly assigned to either the intravascular imaging-guided PCI group (n=138) or the angiography-guided PCI group (n=54). The primary end point was target vessel failure defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 2.1 years (interquartile range 1.1 to 3.0 years), intravascular imaging-guided PCI was associated with lower incidence of primary end point compared with angiography-guided PCI (6.8% versus 25.1%; hazard ratio, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.13-0.76]; P=0.010). This significant reduction in primary end point was mainly driven by a lower risk of cardiac death or spontaneous target vessel-related myocardial infarction (1.6% versus 12.7%; hazard ratio, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.03-0.82]; P=0.028). Intravascular imaging-guided PCI was independently associated with a lower risk of primary end point, even after adjusting for various clinical factors (hazard ratio, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.12-0.72]; P=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Intravascular imaging-guided PCI showed clinical benefit over angiography-guided PCI for left main coronary artery disease in reducing the risk of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03381872.

Intravascular Imaging in Patients With Complex Coronary Lesions and Chronic Kidney Disease.

Importance: As patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are more likely to have complex coronary lesions, intravascular imaging guidance in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for this population could be potentially beneficial. Objectives: To investigate whether the outcomes of intravascular imaging-guided procedural optimization would be different according to the presence of CKD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a prespecified substudy of RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI, a recently published multicenter randomized clinical trial in Korea studying the benefits of intravascular imaging for complex coronary lesions. Patients with complex coronary lesions, with or without CKD, were enrolled between May 2018 and May 2021. Data were analyzed from January to June 2023. Interventions: PCI in each group was done either under the guidance of intravascular imaging or angiography alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was target vessel failure (TVF) at the 3-year point, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization. Results: A total of 1639 patients (1300 male [79.3%]) treated with PCI for complex coronary lesions were stratified into CKD (296 participants) and non-CKD (1343 participants) groups. The mean (SD) age of each group was 70.3 (9.4) and 64.5 (10.1) years, and mean (SD) estimated serum creatinine was 2.9 (5.3) and 0.8 (0.2) mg/dL for CKD and non-CKD groups, respectively. Intravascular imaging-guided revascularization was associated with significantly lower incidence of the primary end point compared with angiography-guided revascularization in both CKD (13.3% vs 23.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.27-0.93; P = .03) and non-CKD (6.4% vs 9.9%; HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.44-0.99; P = .05) groups. The significantly lower incidence of the primary end point was mainly associated with the lower risk of cardiac death or target vessel-related myocardial infarction (9.4% vs 22.2%; HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.20-0.76; P = .006) in the CKD group and by target vessel revascularization (3.0% vs 5.5%; HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.30-0.99; P = .05) in the non-CKD group. Those with a glomerular filtration rate of at least 30 mL/min/1.73m2 and less than 60 ml/kg/1.73m2 showed the greatest benefit from imaging-guided complex PCI (8.8% vs 21.2%; HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11-0.68; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In this prespecified cohort substudy of the Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravascular Imaging Guidance versus Angiography-Guidance on Clinical Outcomes After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention trial, intravascular imaging guidance showed clinical benefit over angiography guidance in reducing the risk of TVF, regardless of the presence of CKD. The greatest benefits of imaging-guided complex PCI were observed in stage 3 CKD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03381872.

Comparison of Antiplatelet Monotherapies After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention According to Clinical, Ischemic, and Bleeding Risks.

BACKGROUND: Clopidogrel was superior to aspirin monotherapy in secondary prevention after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the benefits of clopidogrel across high-risk subgroups METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of the HOST-EXAM (Harmonizing Optimal Strategy for Treatment of coronary artery diseases-EXtended Antiplatelet Monotherapy) trial that randomly assigned patients who were event free for 6 to 18 months post-PCI on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) to clopidogrel or aspirin monotherapy. Two clinical risk scores were used for risk stratification: the DAPT score and the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction Risk Score for Secondary Prevention (TRS 2°P) (the sum of age ≥75 years, diabetes, hypertension, current smoking, peripheral artery disease, stroke, coronary artery bypass grafting, heart failure, and renal dysfunction). The primary composite endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, readmission because of acute coronary syndrome, and major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type ≥3) at 2 years after randomization. RESULTS: Among 5,403 patients, clopidogrel monotherapy showed a lower rate of the primary composite endpoint than aspirin monotherapy (HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.59-0.90). The benefit of clopidogrel over aspirin was consistent regardless of TRS 2°P (high TRS 2°P [≥3] group: HR: 0.65 [95% CI: 0.44-0.96]; and low TRS 2°P [<3] group: HR: 0.77 [95% CI: 0.60-0.99]) (P for interaction = 0.454) and regardless of DAPT score (high DAPT score [≥2] group: HR: 0.68 [95% CI: 0.46-1.00]; and low DAPT score [<2] group: HR: 0.75 [95% CI: 0.59-0.96]) (P for interaction = 0.662). The association was similar for the individual outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The beneficial effect of clopidogrel over aspirin monotherapy was consistent regardless of clinical risk or relative ischemic and bleeding risks compared with aspirin monotherapy. (Harmonizing Optimal Strategy for Treatment of Coronary Artery Stenosis- EXtended Antiplatelet Monotherapy [HOST-EXAM]; NCT02044250).

Triglyceride-Rich Lipoproteins and Remnant Cholesterol in Cardiovascular Disease.

Despite the well-established benefits of statin treatments in lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), a significant residual risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) remains. Triglycerides (TGs) have long been recognized as potential residual risk factors in this context, but recent studies now disclose the substantial role of TG-rich lipoproteins (TRLs) and cholesterol components of metabolized TRLs (commonly referred to as remnant cholesterol) in atherogenesis, not just TGs alone. Evidence derived through diverse sources, including preclinical studies of pathogenic mechanisms, epidemiologic investigations, and genetic research, has consistently supported the considerable contribution of TRLs and remnant cholesterol in predicting occurrences of ASCVD. As emerging biomarkers for predicting atherosclerosis, they have thus become prioritized therapeutic targets, meant to augment LDL-C lowering efforts in individuals at high risk of ASCVD. However, routine clinical testing for remnant cholesterol and TRLs is still in question, necessitating further research into appropriate treatment plans if levels are elevated. New therapies targeting proteins in TG metabolic pathways, particularly angiopoietin-like protein 3 and apolipoprotein C-III, have shown potential advantages in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia by reducing blood levels of TGs and remnant cholesterol. The aim of this review is to summarize existing evidence linking elevated TRLs and remnant cholesterol with development of ASCVD and to explore additional guidance for clinical therapy.

Intravascular Imaging-Guided or Angiography-Guided Complex PCI.

BACKGROUND: Data regarding clinical outcomes after intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for complex coronary-artery lesions, as compared with outcomes after angiography-guided PCI, are limited. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, open-label trial in South Korea, we randomly assigned patients with complex coronary-artery lesions in a 2:1 ratio to undergo either intravascular imaging-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI. In the intravascular imaging group, the choice between intravascular ultrasonography and optical coherence tomography was at the operators' discretion. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target-vessel revascularization. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 1639 patients underwent randomization, with 1092 assigned to undergo intravascular imaging-guided PCI and 547 assigned to undergo angiography-guided PCI. At a median follow-up of 2.1 years (interquartile range, 1.4 to 3.0), a primary end-point event had occurred in 76 patients (cumulative incidence, 7.7%) in the intravascular imaging group and in 60 patients (cumulative incidence, 12.3%) in the angiography group (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.45 to 0.89; P = 0.008). Death from cardiac causes occurred in 16 patients (cumulative incidence, 1.7%) in the intravascular imaging group and in 17 patients (cumulative incidence, 3.8%) in the angiography group; target-vessel-related myocardial infarction occurred in 38 (cumulative incidence, 3.7%) and 30 (cumulative incidence, 5.6%), respectively; and clinically driven target-vessel revascularization in 32 (cumulative incidence, 3.4%) and 25 (cumulative incidence, 5.5%), respectively. There were no apparent between-group differences in the incidence of procedure-related safety events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with complex coronary-artery lesions, intravascular imaging-guided PCI led to a lower risk of a composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target-vessel revascularization than angiography-guided PCI. (Supported by Abbott Vascular and Boston Scientific; RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03381872).

Omega-3 fatty acids and atrial fibrillation.

Although some clinical trials have demonstrated reduced incidence of cardiovascular disease with the use of omega-3 fatty acids, others have found an increased risk of atrial fibrillation (AF). AF is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia worldwide. It is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates and significant public health burden. Previous studies of the effect of omega-3 fatty acids on AF occurrence have reported contradictory results. Here we reviewed the effect of omega-3 fatty acids on the risk of AF.

Self-Monitoring of Blood Pressure and Feed-back Using APP in TReatment of UnconTrolled Hypertension (SMART-BP): A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Self-monitoring of blood pressure (SMBP) is a reliable method used to assess BP accurately. However, patients do not often know how to respond to the measured BP value. We developed a mobile application-based feed-back algorithm (SMBP-App) for tailored recommendations. In this study, we aim to evaluate whether SMBP-App is superior to SMBP alone in terms of BP reduction and drug adherence improvement in patients with hypertension. METHODS: Self-Monitoring of blood pressure and Feed-back using APP in TReatment of UnconTrolled Hypertension (SMART-BP) is a prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter trial to evaluate the efficacy of SMBP-App compared with SMBP alone. Patients with uncomplicated essential hypertension will be randomly assigned to the SMBP-App (90 patients) and SMBP alone (90 patients) groups. In the SMBP group, the patients will perform home BP measurement and receive the standard care, whereas in the SMBP-App group, the patients will receive additional recommendations from the application in response to the obtained BP value. Follow-up visits will be scheduled at 12 and 24 weeks after randomization. The primary endpoint of the study is the mean home systolic BP. The secondary endpoints include the drug adherence, the home diastolic BP, home and office BP. CONCLUSIONS: SMART-BP is a prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter trial to evaluate the efficacy of SMBP-App. If we can confirm its efficacy, SMBP-App may be scaled-up to improve the treatment of hypertension. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04470284.

A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Active-controlled, Factorial Design, Phase III Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Combination Therapy of Pitavastatin and Ezetimibe Versus Monotherapy of Pitavastatin in Patients With Primary Hypercholesterolemia.

PURPOSE: Pitavastatin is a unique lipophilic statin with moderate efficacy in lowering LDL-C levels by 30% to 50% with a tolerable safety profile. However, the efficacy of adding ezetimibe to pitavastatin in patients with dyslipidemia has not been well investigated. Therefore, the objective of this double-blind, multicenter, randomized, Phase III study was to compare the efficacy and safety of pitavastatin and ezetimibe combination therapy with those of pitavastatin monotherapy in Korean patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. METHODS: Korean men and women aged >19 and <80 years with primary hypercholesterolemia requiring medical treatment were included in this study. During the 8-week screening period, all patients were instructed to make therapeutic lifestyle changes. The screening period consisted of a 4-week washout period and a placebo run-in period (4-8 weeks). During treatment period I, patients were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 4 treatments: pitavastatin 2 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg, pitavastatin 2 mg, pitavastatin 4 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg, or pitavastatin 4 mg. The 8-week double-blind treatment period then commenced. Adverse events (AEs), clinical laboratory data, and vital signs were assessed in all patients. FINDINGS: The percentages in LDL-C from baseline after 8 weeks of double-blind treatment decreased significantly in the pooled pitavastatin/ezetimibe (-52.8% [11.2%]) and pooled pitavastatin (-37.1% [14.1%]) groups. Treatment with pitavastatin/ezetimibe resulted in a significantly greater LDL-C-lowering effect than that with pitavastatin (difference, -15.8 mg/dL; 95% CI, -18.7 to -12.9; P < 0.001). The precentages of achieving LDL-C goal in pooled pitavastatin/ezetimibe and pooled pitavastatin groups were 94.2% and 69.1%, respectively (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the incidence of overall AEs and adverse drug reactions. Serious AEs were comparable between the groups. IMPLICATIONS: Pitavastatin and ezetimibe combinations effectively and safely decreased LDL-C levels by >50% in patients with dyslipidemia. The safety and tolerability of pitavastatin and ezetimibe combination therapy were comparable with those of pitavastatin monotherapy. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT04584736.

Durable polymer versus biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention: a post hoc analysis of the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial.

BACKGROUND: Comparative data of durable polymer (DP) versus biodegradable polymer (BP) drug-eluting stents (DES) are limited in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). AIMS: We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DP-DES and BP-DES in ACS patients receiving complex PCI. METHODS: This study was a post hoc analysis of the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial. ACS patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to DP-DES or BP-DES in the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial. Complex PCI was defined as having at least 1 of the following features: ≥3 stents implanted, ≥3 lesions treated, total stent length ≥60 mm, bifurcation PCI with 2 stents, left main PCI, or heavy calcification. Patient-oriented (POCO, a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and any repeat revascularisation) and device-oriented composite outcomes (DOCO, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularisation) were evaluated at 12 months. RESULTS: Among 3,301 patients for whom full procedural data were available, 1,140 patients received complex PCI. Complex PCI was associated with higher risks of POCO and DOCO. The risks of POCO were comparable between DP-DES and BP-DES in both the complex (HR 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57-1.33; p=0.522) and non-complex (HR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.56-1.24; p=0.368; p for interaction=0.884) PCI groups. DOCO was also not significantly different between DP-DES and BP-DES in both the complex (HR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.43-1.27; p=0.278) and non-complex (HR 0.67, 95% CI: 0.38-1.19; p=0.175; p for interaction=0.814) PCI groups. CONCLUSIONS: In ACS patients, DP-DES and BP-DES showed similar clinical outcomes irrespective of PCI complexity.

Nitrates vs. Other Types of Vasodilators and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Vasospastic Angina: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Although vasodilators are widely used in patients with vasospastic angina (VA), few studies have compared the long-term prognostic effects of different types of vasodilators. We investigated the long-term effects of vasodilators on clinical outcomes in VA patients according to the type of vasodilator used. Study data were obtained from a prospective multicenter registry that included patients who had symptoms suggestive of VA. Patients were classified into two groups according to use of nitrates (n = 239) or other vasodilators (n = 809) at discharge. The composite clinical events rate, including acute coronary syndrome (ACS), cardiac death, new-onset arrhythmia (including ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation), and atrioventricular block, was significantly higher in the nitrates group (5.3% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.026) during one year of follow-up. Specifically, the prevalence of ACS was significantly more frequent in the nitrates group (4.3% vs. 1.5%, p = 0.024). After propensity score matching, the adverse effects of nitrates remained. In addition, the use of nitrates at discharge was independently associated with a 2.69-fold increased risk of ACS in VA patients. In conclusion, using nitrates as a vasodilator at discharge can increase the adverse clinical outcomes in VA patients at one year of follow-up. Clinicians need to be aware of the prognostic value and consider prescribing other vasodilators.

Prognostic Impact of Chronic Vasodilator Therapy in Patients With Vasospastic Angina.

Background Chronic vasodilator therapy with long-acting nitrate is frequently used to treat vasospastic angina. However, the clinical benefits of this approach are controversial. We investigated the prognostic impact of vasodilator therapy in patients with vasospastic angina from the multicenter, prospective VA-KOREA (Vasospastic Angina in KOREA) registry. Methods and Results We analyzed data from 1895 patients with positive intracoronary ergonovine provocation test results. The patients were divided into 4 groups: no vasodilator (n=359), nonnitrate vasodilator (n=1187), conventional nitrate (n=209), and a combination of conventional nitrate and other vasodilators (n=140). The primary end point was a composite of cardiac death, acute coronary syndrome, and new-onset arrhythmia at 2 years. Secondary end points were the individual components of the primary end point, all-cause death, and rehospitalization due to recurrent angina. The groups did not differ in terms of the risk of the primary end point. However, the acute coronary syndrome risk was significantly higher in the conventional nitrate (hazard ratio [HR], 2.49; 95% CI, 1.01-6.14; P=0.047) and combination groups (HR, 3.34; 95% CI, 1.15-9.75, P=0.027) compared with the no-vasodilator group, as assessed using the inverse probability of treatment weights. Subgroup analyses revealed prominent adverse effects of nitrate in patients with an intermediate positive ergonovine provocation test result and in those with low Japanese Coronary Spasm Association scores. Conclusions Long-acting nitrate-based chronic vasodilator therapy was associated with an increased 2-year risk of acute coronary syndrome in patients with vasospastic angina, especially in low-risk patients.

Prasugrel Dose De-escalation Therapy After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Post Hoc Analysis From the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS Trial.

Importance: De-escalation of dual-antiplatelet therapy through dose reduction of prasugrel improved net adverse clinical events after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), mainly through the reduction of bleeding without an increase in ischemic outcomes. However, whether such benefits are similarly observed in those receiving complex procedures is unknown. Objective: To investigate whether the benefits of prasugrel dose de-escalation therapy are maintained in the complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) subgroup. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a post hoc analysis of the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial, a randomized, open-label, adjudicator-blinded, multicenter trial performed at 35 hospitals in South Korea. Study participants included patients with ACS who were receiving PCI. Data were collected from September 30, 2014, to December 18, 2015, and analyzed from September 17, 2020, to June 15, 2021. Interventions and Exposures: Patients were randomized to a prasugrel dose de-escalation (5 mg daily) at 1 month post-PCI group or a conventional (10 mg daily) group. Complex PCI was defined as having at least 1 of the following features: 3 or more stents implanted, 3 or more lesions treated, bifurcation PCI, total stent length 60 mm or larger, left main PCI, or heavy calcification. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main analysis end points were MACE (major adverse cardiac event, a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and repeat revascularization) at 1 year for ischemic outcomes, and BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) class 2 or higher bleeding events at 1 year for bleeding outcomes. Results: Of 2271 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.9 [9.0] years; 2024 [89%] male patients) for whom full procedural data were available, 705 patients received complex PCI, and 1566 patients received noncomplex PCI. Complex PCI was associated with higher rates of ischemic outcomes but not with bleeding outcomes. Prasugrel dose de-escalation did not increase the risk of MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.47-1.66; P = .70 in complex PCI; HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.45-1.46; P = .48 in noncomplex PCI; P for interaction = .84) but decreased BARC class 2 or higher bleeding events (HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.10-0.61; P = .002 in complex PCI; HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.38-1.00; P = .05 in noncomplex PCI; P for interaction = .08), albeit with wide 95% CIs. Conclusions and Relevance: In this post hoc analysis of patients with ACS, prasugrel dose de-escalation compared with conventional therapy was not associated with an increased risk of ischemic outcomes but may reduce the risk of minor bleeding events at 1 year, irrespective of PCI complexity. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02193971.

A Prospective Randomized, Double-Blind, Multi-Center, Phase III Clinical Trial Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Olmesartan/Amlodipine plus Rosuvastatin Combination Treatment in Patients with Concomitant Hypertension and Dyslipidemia: A LEISURE Study.

BACKGROUND: This study was a multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled phase III clinical trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of an olmesartan/amlodipine single pill plus rosuvastatin combination treatment for patients with concomitant hypertension and dyslipidemia. METHODS: Patients with both hypertension and dyslipidemia aged 20-80 were enrolled from 36 tertiary hospitals in Korea from January 2017 to April 2018. Patients were randomized to three groups in a 1:1:0.5 ratio, olmesartan/amlodipine single pill plus rosuvastatin (olme/amlo/rosu) or olmesartan plus rosuvastatin (olme/rosu) or olmesartan/amlodipine single pill (olme/amlo) combination. The primary endpoints were change of sitting systolic blood pressure (sitSBP) from baseline in the olme/amlo/rosu vs. olme/rosu groups and the percentage change of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) from baseline in the olme/amlo/rosu vs. olme/amlo groups after 8 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 265 patients were randomized, 106 to olme/amlo/rosu, 106 to olme/rosu and 53 to olme/amlo groups. Baseline characteristics among the three groups did not differ. The mean sitSBP change was significantly larger in the olme/amlo/rosu group with -24.30 ± 12.62 mmHg (from 153.58 ± 10.90 to 129.28 ± 13.58) as compared to the olme/rosu group, -9.72 ± 16.27 mmHg (from 153.71 ± 11.10 to 144.00 ± 18.44 mmHg). The difference in change of sitSBP between the two groups was -14.62± 1.98 mmHg with significance (95% CI -18.51 to -10.73, p < 0.0001). The mean LDL-C reduced significantly in the olme/amlo/rosu group, -52.31 ± 16.63% (from 154.52 ± 30.84 to 72.72 ± 26.08 mg/dL) as compared to the olme/amlo group with no change, -2.98 ± 16.16% (from 160.42 ± 32.05 to 153.81 ± 31.57 mg/dL). Significant difference in change was found in LDL-C between the two groups with -50.10 ± 2.73% (95% CI -55.49 to -44.71, p < 0.0001). Total adverse drug reaction rates were 10.48%, 5.66% and 3.7% in the olme/amlo/rosu, olme/rosu and olme/amlo groups, respectively with no statistical significance among the three groups. Serious adverse drug reactions did not occur. CONCLUSIONS: Olmesartan/amlodipine single pill plus rosuvastatin combination treatment for patients with both hypertension and dyslipidemia is effective and safe as compared to either olmesartan plus rosuvastatin or olmesartan plus amlodipine treatment.