Age and Aspirin Dosing in Secondary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: In patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, increasing age is concurrently associated with higher risks of ischemic and bleeding events. The objectives are to determine the impact of aspirin dose on clinical outcomes according to age in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) trial, patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomized to daily aspirin doses of 81 mg or 325 mg. The primary effectiveness end point was death from any cause, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke. The primary safety end point was hospitalization for bleeding requiring transfusion. A total of 15 076 participants were randomized to aspirin 81 mg (n=7540) or 325 mg (n=7536) daily (median follow-up: 26.2 months; interquartile range: 19.0-34.9 months). Median age was 67.6 years (interquartile range: 60.7-73.6 years). Among participants aged <65 years (n=5841 [38.7%]), a primary end point occurred in 226 (7.54%) in the 81 mg group, and in 191 (6.80%) in the 325 mg group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.23 [95% CI, 1.01-1.49]). Among participants aged ≥65 years (n=9235 [61.3%]), a primary end point occurred in 364 (7.12%) in the 81 mg group, and in 378 (7.96%) in the 325 mg group (adjusted HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.82-1.10]). The age-dose interaction was not significant (P=0.559). There was no significant interaction between age and the randomized aspirin dose for the secondary effectiveness and the primary safety bleeding end points (P>0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Age does not modify the impact of aspirin dosing (81 mg or 325 mg daily) on clinical end points in secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

Comparative Effectiveness of Aspirin Dosing in Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes Mellitus: A Subgroup Analysis of the ADAPTABLE Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and concomitant atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) must be on the most effective dose of aspirin to mitigate risk of future adverse cardiovascular events. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: ADAPTABLE, an open-label, pragmatic study, randomized patients with stable, chronic ASCVD to 81 mg or 325 mg of daily aspirin. The effects of aspirin dosing was assessed on the primary effectiveness outcome, a composite of all-cause death, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke, and the primary safety outcome of hospitalization for major bleeding. In this prespecified analysis, we used Cox proportional hazards models to compare aspirin dosing in patients with and without DM for the primary effectiveness and safety outcome. RESULTS: Of 15,076 patients, 5,676 (39%) had DM of whom 2,820 (49.7%) were assigned to 81 mg aspirin and 2,856 (50.3%) to 325 mg aspirin. Patients with versus without DM had higher rates of the composite cardiovascular outcome (9.6% vs. 5.9%; P < 0.001) and bleeding events (0.78% vs. 0.50%; P < 0.001). When comparing 81 mg vs. 325 mg of aspirin, patients with DM had no difference in the primary effectiveness outcome (9.3% vs. 10.0%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.98 [95% CI 0.83-1.16]; P = 0.265) or safety outcome (0.87% vs. 0.69%; subdistribution HR 1.25 [95% CI 0.72-2.16]; P = 0.772). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the inherently higher risk of patients with DM irrespective of aspirin dosing. Our findings suggest that a higher dose of aspirin yields no added clinical benefit, even in a more vulnerable population.

Aspirin Dosing for Secondary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in Patients Treated With P2Y12 Inhibitors.

Background The ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) was a large, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial that found no difference between high- versus low-dose aspirin for secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Whether concomitant P2Y12 inhibitor therapy modifies the effect of aspirin dose on clinical events remains unclear. Methods and Results Participants in ADAPTABLE were stratified according to baseline use of clopidogrel or prasugrel (P2Y12 group). The primary effectiveness end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; and the primary safety end point was major bleeding requiring blood transfusions. We used multivariable Cox regression to compare the relative effectiveness and safety of aspirin dose within P2Y12 and non-P2Y12 groups. Of 13 815 (91.6%) participants with available data, 3051 (22.1%) were receiving clopidogrel (2849 [93.4%]) or prasugrel (203 [6.7%]) at baseline. P2Y12 inhibitor use was associated with higher risk of the primary effectiveness end point (10.86% versus 6.31%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.40 [95% CI, 1.22-1.62]) but was not associated with bleeding (0.95% versus 0.53%; adjusted HR, 1.42 [95% CI, 0.91-2.22]). We found no interaction in the relative effectiveness and safety of high- versus low-dose aspirin by P2Y12 inhibitor use. Overall, dose switching or discontinuation was more common in the high-dose compared with low-dose aspirin group, but the pattern was not modified by P2Y12 inhibitor use. Conclusions In this prespecified analysis of ADAPTABLE, we found that the relative effectiveness and safety of high- versus low-dose aspirin was not modified by baseline P2Y12 inhibitor use. Registration https://www.clinical.trials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02697916.

Effectiveness and Safety of Enteric-Coated vs Uncoated Aspirin in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease: A Secondary Analysis of the ADAPTABLE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Clinicians recommend enteric-coated aspirin to decrease gastrointestinal bleeding in secondary prevention of coronary artery disease even though studies suggest platelet inhibition is decreased with enteric-coated vs uncoated aspirin formulations. Objective: To assess whether receipt of enteric-coated vs uncoated aspirin is associated with effectiveness or safety outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a post hoc secondary analysis of ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-term Effectiveness), a pragmatic study of 15 076 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease having data in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network. Patients were enrolled from April 19, 2016, through June 30, 2020, and randomly assigned to receive high (325 mg) vs low (81 mg) doses of daily aspirin. The present analysis assessed the effectiveness and safety of enteric-coated vs uncoated aspirin among those participants who reported aspirin formulation at baseline. Data were analyzed from November 11, 2019, to July 3, 2023. Intervention: ADAPTABLE participants were regrouped according to aspirin formulation self-reported at baseline, with a median (IQR) follow-up of 26.2 (19.8-35.4) months. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary effectiveness end point was the cumulative incidence of the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from any cause, and the primary safety end point was major bleeding events (hospitalization for a bleeding event with use of a blood product or intracranial hemorrhage). Cumulative incidence at median follow-up for primary effectiveness and primary safety end points was compared between participants taking enteric-coated or uncoated aspirin using unadjusted and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. All analyses were conducted for the intention-to-treat population. Results: Baseline aspirin formulation used in ADAPTABLE was self-reported for 10 678 participants (median [IQR] age, 68.0 [61.3-73.7] years; 7285 men [68.2%]), of whom 7366 (69.0%) took enteric-coated aspirin and 3312 (31.0%) took uncoated aspirin. No significant difference in effectiveness (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.80-1.09; P = .40) or safety (AHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.49-1.37; P = .46) outcomes between the enteric-coated aspirin and uncoated aspirin cohorts was found. Within enteric-coated aspirin and uncoated aspirin, aspirin dose had no association with effectiveness (enteric-coated aspirin AHR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.88-1.45 and uncoated aspirin AHR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.83-1.18; interaction P = .41) or safety (enteric-coated aspirin AHR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.02-5.50 and uncoated aspirin AHR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.49-1.64; interaction P = .07). Conclusions and Relevance: In this post hoc secondary analysis of the ADAPTABLE randomized clinical trial, enteric-coated aspirin was not associated with significantly higher risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death or with lower bleeding risk compared with uncoated aspirin, regardless of dose, although a reduction in bleeding with enteric-coated aspirin cannot be excluded. More research is needed to confirm whether enteric-coated aspirin formulations or newer formulations will improve outcomes in this population. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02697916.

Leveraging electronic health records to streamline the conduct of cardiovascular clinical trials.

Conventional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can be expensive, time intensive, and complex to conduct. Trial recruitment, participation, and data collection can burden participants and research personnel. In the past two decades, there have been rapid technological advances and an exponential growth in digitized healthcare data. Embedding RCTs, including cardiovascular outcome trials, into electronic health record systems or registries may streamline screening, consent, randomization, follow-up visits, and outcome adjudication. Moreover, wearable sensors (i.e. health and fitness trackers) provide an opportunity to collect data on cardiovascular health and risk factors in unprecedented detail and scale, while growing internet connectivity supports the collection of patient-reported outcomes. There is a pressing need to develop robust mechanisms that facilitate data capture from diverse databases and guidance to standardize data definitions. Importantly, the data collection infrastructure should be reusable to support multiple cardiovascular RCTs over time. Systems, processes, and policies will need to have sufficient flexibility to allow interoperability between different sources of data acquisition. Clinical research guidelines, ethics oversight, and regulatory requirements also need to evolve. This review highlights recent progress towards the use of routinely generated data to conduct RCTs and discusses potential solutions for ongoing barriers. There is a particular focus on methods to utilize routinely generated data for trials while complying with regional data protection laws. The discussion is supported with examples of cardiovascular outcome trials that have successfully leveraged the electronic health record, web-enabled devices or administrative databases to conduct randomized trials.

Outcomes After Acute Coronary Syndrome in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus and Peripheral Artery Disease (from the TRACER, TRILOGY-ACS, APPRAISE-2, and PLATO Clinical Trials).

Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are at risk for recurrent adverse events, and multiple reports suggest that this risk is increased in patients with concomitant diabetes mellitus (DM) and peripheral artery disease (PAD). The aim of this article was to investigate cardiovascular outcomes in patients with DM presenting with ACS, stratified by PAD status. Data were derived from 4 randomized post-ACS trials (PLATO [Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes], APPRAISE-2 p Apixaban for Prevention of Acute Ischemic Events 2], TRILOGY [Targeted Platelet Inhibition to Clarify the Optimal Strategy to Medically Manage], and TRACER [Thrombin Receptor Agonist for Clinical Event Reduction in Acute Coronary Syndrome]). Using Cox regression analysis, we investigated major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), a composite of cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke and the individual components of MACE and all-cause mortality in patients with DM, presenting with ACS, stratified by PAD status as the risk modifier. This study included 15,387 patients with a diagnosis of DM and ACS, of whom 1,751 had an additional diagnosis of PAD. PAD was associated with more than doubled rates of MACE (hazard ratio [HR] 2.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.81 to 2.27), all-cause mortality (HR 2.48, 95% CI 2.14 to 2.87), cardiovascular mortality (HR 2.42, 95% CI 2.04 to 2.86), and MI (HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.38). Patients with both PAD and DM were also more optimally treated with antihypertensive, antidiabetic, and statin medication at baseline. In conclusion, this analysis of 4 major post-ACS trials showed that patients with DM and PAD had a substantially higher risk of MACE, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and MI despite being optimally treated with guideline-based therapies.

Preexisting frailty and outcomes in older patients with acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the prevalence and prognostic impact of preexisting frailty on acute care and in-hospital outcomes in older adults in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). METHODS: Preexisting frailty was assessed at baseline in consecutive AMI patients ≥65 years of age treated at 778 hospitals participating in the NCDR ACTION Registry between January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016. Three domains of preexisting frailty (cognition, ambulation, and functional independence) were abstracted from chart review and summed in 2 ways: an ACTION Frailty Scale based on responses to 6 groups adapted from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging Clinical Frailty Scale and an ACTION Frailty Score derived by summing a rank score of 0-2 assigned for each grade (total ranged between 0 to 6). Multivariable logistic regression examined the association between assigned frailty by score or scale and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Among 143,722 older AMI patients, 108,059 (75.2%) were fit and/or well and 6,484 (4.5%) were vulnerable to frailty, while 7,527 (5.2%) had mild, 3,913 (2.7%) had moderate, 2,715 had (1.9%) severe, and 632 (0.4%) had very severe frailty according to the ACTION Frailty Scale, while 14,392 (10.0%) could not be categorized due to incomplete ascertainment. Frail patients were older, more frequently female, of non-white race and/or ethnicity, and less likely to be treated with guideline-recommended therapies. Increasing severity of frailty by this scale was associated with a step-wise higher risk for in-hospital mortality (P-trend < .001). Patient categories of the ACTION Frailty Score provided similar results. After adjustment, each 1-unit increase in Frailty Score was associated with a 12% higher mortality risk (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.10-1.15). CONCLUSIONS: Among older patients with acute myocardial infarction, frailty is common and independently associated with in-hospital mortality. These findings show the importance of pragmatic evaluation of frailty in hospital-level quality scores, guideline recommendations, and incorporation into other registry data collection efforts.

Cardiovascular Events and Long-Term Risk of Sudden Death Among Stabilized Patients After Acute Coronary Syndrome: Insights From IMPROVE-IT.

Background Unlike patients with low ejection fraction after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS), little is known about the long-term incidence and influence of cardiovascular events before sudden death among stabilized patients after ACS. Methods and Results A total of 18 144 patients stabilized within 10 days after ACS in IMPROVE-IT (Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial) were studied. Cumulative incidence rates (IRs) and IRs per 100 patient-years of sudden death were calculated. Using Cox proportional hazards, the association of ≥1 additional postrandomization cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, and hospitalization for unstable angina or heart failure) with sudden death was examined. Early (≤1 year after ACS) and late sudden deaths (>1 year) were compared. Of 2446 total deaths, 402 (16%) were sudden. The median time to sudden death was 2.7 years, with 109 early and 293 late sudden deaths. The cumulative IR was 2.47% (95% CI, 2.23%-2.73%) at 7 years of follow-up. The risk of sudden death following a postrandomization cardiovascular event (150/402 [37%] sudden deaths; median 1.4 years) was greater (IR/100 patient-years, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.23-1.69]) than the risk with no postrandomization cardiovascular event (IR/100 patient-years, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.24-0.30]). Postrandomization myocardial infarction (hazard ratio [HR], 3.64 [95% CI, 2.85-4.66]) and heart failure (HR, 4.55 [95% CI, 3.33-6.22]) significantly increased future risk of sudden death. Conclusions Patients stabilized within 10 days of an ACS remain at long-term risk of sudden death with the greatest risk in those with an additional cardiovascular event. These results refine the long-term risk and risk effectors of sudden death, which may help clinicians identify opportunities to improve care. Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00202878.

Validation of Cardiovascular End Points Ascertainment Leveraging Multisource Electronic Health Records Harmonized Into a Common Data Model in the ADAPTABLE Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The ADAPTABLE trial (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) is the first randomized trial conducted within the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network to use the electronic health record data formatted into a common data model as the primary source of end point ascertainment, without confirmation by standard adjudication. The objective of this prespecified study is to assess the validity of nonfatal end points captured from the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, using traditional blinded adjudication as the gold standard. METHODS: A total of 15 076 participants with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomized to two doses of aspirin (81 mg and 325 mg once daily). Nonfatal end points (hospitalization for nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and major bleeding requiring transfusion of blood products) were captured with the use of programming algorithms applied to National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network data. A random subset of end points was independently reviewed by a disease-specific expert adjudicator. The positive predictive value of the programming algorithms were calculated separately for end points listed as primary and as nonprimary diagnoses. RESULTS: A total of 225 end points were identified (91 myocardial infarction events, 89 stroke events, and 45 bleeding events), including 142 (63%) that were listed as primary diagnoses. Complete source documents were missing for 14% of events. The positive predictive value were 90%, 72%, and 93% for hospitalizations for myocardial infarction, stroke, and major bleeding, respectively, as compared to adjudication. When only primary diagnoses were considered, positive predictive value were 93%, 91%, and 97%, respectively. When only nonprimary diagnoses were considered, positive predictive value were 82%, 36%, and 71%. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with blinded adjudication, clinical end point ascertainment from queries of the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network distributed harmonized data was valid to identify hospitalizations for myocardial infarction in ADAPTABLE. The proportion of contradicted events was high for hospitalizations for bleeding and strokes when nonprimary diagnoses were analyzed, but not when only primary diagnoses were considered.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Urological Care Delivery in the United States.

PURPOSE: We examined changes in urological care delivery due to COVID-19 in the U.S. based on patient, practice, and local/regional demographic and pandemic response features. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed real-world data from the American Urological Association Quality (AQUA) Registry collected from electronic health record systems. Data represented 157 outpatient urological practices and 3,165 providers across 48 U.S. states and territories, including 3,297,721 unique patients, 12,488,831 total outpatient visits and 2,194,456 procedures. The primary outcome measure was the number of outpatient visits and procedures performed (inpatient or outpatient) per practice per week, measured from January 2019 to February 2021. RESULTS: We found large (>50%) declines in outpatient visits from March 2020 to April 2020 across patient demographic groups and states, regardless of timing of state stay-at-home orders. Nonurgent outpatient visits decreased more across various nonurgent procedures (49%-59%) than for procedures performed for potentially urgent diagnoses (38%-52%); surgical procedures for nonurgent conditions also decreased more (43%-79%) than those for potentially urgent conditions (43%-53%). African American patients had similar decreases in outpatient visits compared with Asians and Caucasians, but also slower recoveries back to baseline. Medicare-insured patients had the steepest declines (55%), while those on Medicaid and government insurance had the lowest percentage of recovery to baseline (73% and 69%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides real-world evidence on the decline in urological care across demographic groups and practice settings, and demonstrates a differential impact on the utilization of urological health services by demographics and procedure type.

Cardiovascular Safety of Degarelix Versus Leuprolide in Patients With Prostate Cancer: The Primary Results of the PRONOUNCE Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The relative cardiovascular safety of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists compared with GnRH agonists in men with prostate cancer and known atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease remains controversial. METHODS: In this international, multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label trial, men with prostate cancer and concomitant atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive the GnRH antagonist degarelix or the GnRH agonist leuprolide for 12 months. The primary outcome was the time to first adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular event (composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) through 12 months. RESULTS: Because of slower-than-projected enrollment and fewer-than-projected primary outcome events, enrollment was stopped before the 900 planned participants were accrued. From May 3, 2016, to April 16, 2020, a total of 545 patients from 113 sites across 12 countries were randomly selected. Baseline characteristics were balanced between study groups. The median age was 73 years, 49.8% had localized prostate cancer; 26.3% had locally advanced disease, and 20.4% had metastatic disease. A major adverse cardiovascular event occurred in 15 (5.5%) patients assigned to degarelix and 11 (4.1%) patients assigned to leuprolide (hazard ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 0.59-2.79]; P=0.53). CONCLUSIONS: PRONOUNCE (A Trial Comparing Cardiovascular Safety of Degarelix Versus Leuprolide in Patients With Advanced Prostate Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease) is the first, international, randomized clinical trial to prospectively compare the cardiovascular safety of a GnRH antagonist and a GnRH agonist in patients with prostate cancer. The study was terminated prematurely because of the smaller than planned number of participants and events, and no difference in major adverse cardiovascular events at 1 year between patients assigned to degarelix or leuprolide was observed. The relative cardiovascular safety of GnRH antagonists and agonists remains unresolved. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02663908.

Assessment of North American Clinical Research Site Performance During the Start-up of Large Cardiovascular Clinical Trials.

Importance: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are critical in advancing patient care, yet conducting such large-scale trials requires tremendous resources and coordination. Clinical site start-up performance metrics can provide insight into opportunities for improved trial efficiency but have not been well described. Objective: To measure the start-up time needed to reach prespecified milestones across sites in large cardiovascular RCTs in North America and to evaluate how these metrics vary by time and type of regulatory review process. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study evaluated cardiovascular RCTs conducted from July 13, 2004, to February 1, 2017. The RCTs were coordinated by a single academic research organization, the Duke Clinical Research Institute. Nine consecutive trials with completed enrollment and publication of results in their target journal were studied. Data were analyzed from December 4, 2019, to January 11, 2021. Exposures: Year of trial enrollment initiation (2004-2007 vs 2008-2012) and use of a central vs local institutional review board (IRB). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the median start-up time (from study protocol delivery to first participant enrollment) as compared by trial year and type of IRB used. The median start-up time for the top 10% of sites was also reported. Secondary outcomes included time to site regulatory approval, time to contract execution, and time to site activation. Results: For the 9 RCTs included, the median site start-up time shortened only slightly over time from 267 days (interquartile range [IQR], 185-358 days) for 2004-2007 trials to 237 days (IQR, 162-343 days) for 2008-2012 trials (overall median, 255 days [IQR, 177-350 days]; P < .001). For the top 10% of sites, median start-up time was 107 days (IQR, 95-121 days) for 2004-2007 trials vs 104 days (IQR, 84-118 days) for 2008-2012 trials (overall median, 106 days [IQR, 90-120 days]; P = .04). The median start-up time was shorter among sites using a central IRB (199 days [IQR, 140-292 days]) than those using a local IRB (287 days [IQR, 205-390 days]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of North American research sites in large cardiovascular RCTs found a duration of nearly 9 months from the time of study protocol delivery to the first participant enrollment; this metric was only slightly shortened during the study period but was reduced to less than 4 months for top-performing sites. These findings suggest that the use of central IRBs has the potential to improve RCT efficiency.

Enabling patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials, exemplified by cardiovascular trials.

OBJECTIVES: There has been limited success in achieving integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials. We describe how stakeholders envision a solution to this challenge. METHODS: Stakeholders from academia, industry, non-profits, insurers, clinicians, and the Food and Drug Administration convened at a Think Tank meeting funded by the Duke Clinical Research Institute to discuss the challenges of incorporating PROs into clinical trials and how to address those challenges. Using examples from cardiovascular trials, this article describes a potential path forward with a focus on applications in the United States. RESULTS: Think Tank members identified one key challenge: a common understanding of the level of evidence that is necessary to support patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in trials. Think Tank participants discussed the possibility of creating general evidentiary standards depending upon contextual factors, but such guidelines could not be feasibly developed because many contextual factors are at play. The attendees posited that a more informative approach to PROM evidentiary standards would be to develop validity arguments akin to courtroom briefs, which would emphasize a compelling rationale (interpretation/use argument) to support a PROM within a specific context. Participants envisioned a future in which validity arguments would be publicly available via a repository, which would be indexed by contextual factors, clinical populations, and types of claims. CONCLUSIONS: A publicly available repository would help stakeholders better understand what a community believes constitutes compelling support for a specific PROM in a trial. Our proposed strategy is expected to facilitate the incorporation of PROMs into cardiovascular clinical trials and trials in general.

Comparative Effectiveness of Aspirin Dosing in Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate dose of aspirin to lower the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke and to minimize major bleeding in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is a subject of controversy. METHODS: Using an open-label, pragmatic design, we randomly assigned patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease to a strategy of 81 mg or 325 mg of aspirin per day. The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of death from any cause, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke, assessed in a time-to-event analysis. The primary safety outcome was hospitalization for major bleeding, also assessed in a time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: A total of 15,076 patients were followed for a median of 26.2 months (interquartile range [IQR], 19.0 to 34.9). Before randomization, 13,537 (96.0% of those with available information on previous aspirin use) were already taking aspirin, and 85.3% of these patients were previously taking 81 mg of daily aspirin. Death, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke occurred in 590 patients (estimated percentage, 7.28%) in the 81-mg group and 569 patients (estimated percentage, 7.51%) in the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.14). Hospitalization for major bleeding occurred in 53 patients (estimated percentage, 0.63%) in the 81-mg group and 44 patients (estimated percentage, 0.60%) in the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.77). Patients assigned to 325 mg had a higher incidence of dose switching than those assigned to 81 mg (41.6% vs. 7.1%) and fewer median days of exposure to the assigned dose (434 days [IQR, 139 to 737] vs. 650 days [IQR, 415 to 922]). CONCLUSIONS: In this pragmatic trial involving patients with established cardiovascular disease, there was substantial dose switching to 81 mg of daily aspirin and no significant differences in cardiovascular events or major bleeding between patients assigned to 81 mg and those assigned to 325 mg of aspirin daily. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; ADAPTABLE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02697916.).

Intensity of statin treatment after acute coronary syndrome, residual risk, and its modification by alirocumab: insights from the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial.

AIMS: Statins are pivotal to the secondary prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events, but some patients are statin-intolerant. We examined the effects of the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor alirocumab on the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events according to the intensity of background statin treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: The ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial compared alirocumab with placebo in 18,924 patients with acute coronary syndrome and dyslipidaemia despite intensive or maximum-tolerated statin treatment (including no statin if intolerance was documented). The primary outcome (major adverse cardiovascular events) comprised coronary heart disease death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, or unstable angina. Median follow-up was 2.8 years. Baseline statin treatment was high-intensity (88.8%), low/moderate-intensity (8.7%) or none (2.4%). Median baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was 86, 89 and 139 mg/dL (P < 0.001) in these statin treatment categories, respectively. Alirocumab produced similar relative reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol from baseline across statin treatment subgroups, but the mean absolute reductions differed (52.9, 56.7 and 86.1 mg/dL, respectively; P < 0.001). With placebo, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events was highest in the no statin subgroup (10.8%, 10.7% and 26.0% respectively). Alirocumab reduced major adverse cardiovascular events in each statin subgroup (hazard ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80-0.96; 0.68, 0.49-0.94; and 0.65, 0.44-0.97, respectively; Pinteraction = 0.14) with a gradient of absolute risk reduction: 1.25%, 95% CI 0.34-2.16; 3.16%, 0.38-5.94; 7.97%, 0.42-15.51; Pinteraction = 0.106). CONCLUSIONS: PCSK9 inhibition with alirocumab reduces the relative risk of major adverse cardiovascular events after acute coronary syndrome irrespective of background statin treatment. However, patients on no statin are at high absolute risk for recurrent major adverse cardiovascular events; alirocumab substantially reduces that risk. PCSK9 inhibition may be an important therapeutic strategy for statin-intolerant patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Effect of intervention timing on one-year mortality in elderly non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients.

BACKGROUND: The best timing for early invasive therapy in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients remains controversial. We sought to determine the optimal timing of early catheterization in order to improve long-term outcomes in elderly (>65 years old) patients with NSTEMI. METHODS: Using data from the CRUSADE registry linked to Medicare claims, we evaluated the association of early catheterization within the first 24 h or earlier time cut-points of NSTEMI presentation with long-term mortality among older Medicare beneficiaries. RESULTS: Of 15 575 NSTEMI patients from 398 CRUSADE hospitals (2003-2006), 3880 (24.9%) received early (≤12 h) catheterization. Compared with those undergoing later catheterization, patients treated early were younger and had less comorbid illness. Relative to those treated later, patients receiving early catheterization had similar 1-year all-cause mortality (11.8% vs 11.9%, P = 0.90). Using on- vs off-hour presentation as an instrumental variable, balancing potential measured and unmeasured confounders, early and later catheterization patients had nonsignificant differences in 1-year mortality (+5.6% [-11.5%, +22.7%]). Similar results were observed in clinically relevant subgroups, such as age (< or ≥75 years), gender, diabetes status, Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events score (< or ≥140), presence of heart failure, and sensitivity analyses of alternative definitions of early catheterization (≤6 and ≤24 h). CONCLUSIONS: Among older NSTEMI patients, we found that <24 h or earlier (neither <6 nor 12 h) of catheterization timing were not significantly associated with differences in long-term mortality.

Risk Factor Burden and Long-Term Prognosis of Patients With Premature Coronary Artery Disease.

Background Coronary artery disease (CAD) is increasing among young adults. We aimed to describe the cardiovascular risk factors and long-term prognosis of premature CAD. Methods and Results Using the Duke Databank for Cardiovascular Disease, we evaluated 3655 patients admitted between 1995 and 2013 with a first diagnosis of obstructive CAD before the age of 50 years. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), defined as the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or revascularization, were ascertained for up to 10 years. Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess associations with the rate of first recurrent event, and negative binomial log-linear regression was used for rate of multiple event recurrences. Past or current smoking was the most frequent cardiovascular factor (60.8%), followed by hypertension (52.8%) and family history of CAD (39.8%). Within a 10-year follow-up, 52.9% of patients had at least 1 MACE, 18.6% had at least 2 recurrent MACEs, and 7.9% had at least 3 recurrent MACEs, with death occurring in 20.9% of patients. Across follow-up, 31.7% to 37.2% of patients continued smoking, 81.7% to 89.3% had low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels beyond the goal of 70 mg/dL, and 16% had new-onset diabetes mellitus. Female sex, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, multivessel disease, and chronic inflammatory disease were factors associated with recurrent MACEs. Conclusions Premature CAD is an aggressive disease with frequent ischemic recurrences and premature death. Individuals with premature CAD have a high proportion of modifiable cardiovascular risk factors, but failure to control them is frequently observed.

Long-Term Bleeding Risk Prediction with Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Acute Coronary Syndromes Treated Without Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: Longitudinal bleeding risk scores have been validated in patients treated with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) following percutaneous coronary intervention. How these scores apply to the population of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treated without revascularization remains unknown. The objective was to evaluate and compare the performances of the PRECISE-DAPT, PARIS, and DAPT (bleeding component) bleeding risk scores in the medically managed patients with ACS treated with DAPT. METHODS AND RESULTS: TRILOGY ACS (Targeted Platelet Inhibition to Clarify the Optimal Strategy to Medically Manage Acute Coronary Syndromes) was a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial conducted from 2008 to 2012 over a median follow-up of 17.0 months in 966 sites (52 countries). High-risk patients with unstable angina or non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction who did not undergo revascularization were randomized to prasugrel or clopidogrel. The PRECISE-DAPT, PARIS, and DAPT (bleeding component) risk scores were applied in the TRILOGY ACS population to evaluate their performance to predict adjudicated non-coronary artery bypass grafting-related GUSTO (Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries) severe/life-threatening/moderate and TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) major/minor bleeding with time-dependent c-indices. Among the 9326 participants, median age was 66 years (interquartile range, 59-74 years), and 3650 were females (39.1%). A total of 158 (1.69%) GUSTO severe/life-threatening/moderate and 174 (1.87%) TIMI major/minor non-coronary artery bypass grafting bleeding events occurred. The c-indices (95% CI) of the PRECISE-DAPT, PARIS, and DAPT (bleeding component) scores through 12 months were 0.716 (0.677-0.758), 0.693 (0.658-0.733), and 0.674 (0.637-0.713), respectively, for GUSTO bleeding and 0.624 (0.582-0.666), 0.612 (0.578-0.651), and 0.608 (0.571-0.649), respectively, for TIMI bleeding. There was no significant difference in the c-indices of each score based upon pairwise comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Among medically managed patients with ACS treated with DAPT, the performances of the PRECISE-DAPT, PARIS, and DAPT (bleeding component) scores were reasonable and similar to their performances in the derivation percutaneous coronary intervention populations. Bleeding risk scores may be used to predict longitudinal bleeding risk in patients with ACS treated with DAPT without revascularization and help support shared decision making. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00699998.