Reduction of prevalence of patients meeting the criteria for metabolic syndrome with tirzepatide: a post hoc analysis from the SURPASS Clinical Trial Program.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic syndrome is characterized as the co-occurrence of interrelated cardiovascular risk factors, including insulin resistance, hyperinsulinemia, abdominal obesity, dyslipidemia and hypertension. Once weekly tirzepatide is approved in the US and EU for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity. In the SURPASS clinical trial program for T2D, tirzepatide demonstrated greater improvements in glycemic control, body weight reduction and other cardiometabolic risk factors versus placebo, subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg, insulin degludec, and insulin glargine. This post hoc analysis assessed the effect of tirzepatide use on the prevalence of patients meeting the criteria for metabolic syndrome across SURPASS 1-5. METHODS: Metabolic syndrome was defined as having ≥ 3 of 5 criteria according to the US National Cholesterol Education Program: Adult Treatment Panel III. Analyses were based on on-treatment data at the primary endpoint from patients adherent to treatment (taking ≥ 75% study drug). A logistic regression model with metabolic syndrome status as the response variable, metabolic syndrome status at the baseline visit as an adjustment, and randomized treatment as fixed explanatory effect was used. The effect of tirzepatide use on the prevalence of patients meeting the criteria for metabolic syndrome by categorical weight loss, background medication and gender were assessed. RESULTS: In SURPASS, the prevalence of patients meeting the criteria for metabolic syndrome at baseline was 67-88% across treatment groups with reductions at the primary endpoint to 38-64% with tirzepatide versus 64-82% with comparators. Reductions in the prevalence of patients meeting the criteria for metabolic syndrome was significantly greater with all tirzepatide doses versus placebo, semaglutide 1 mg, insulin glargine, and insulin degludec (p < 0.001). Individual components of metabolic syndrome were also reduced to a greater extent with tirzepatide vs comparators. Greater reductions in body weight were associated with greater reductions in the prevalence of patients meeting the criteria for metabolic syndrome and its individual components. Background SGLT2i or sulfonylurea use or gender did not impact the change in prevalence of patients meeting the criteria for metabolic syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis, tirzepatide at all doses studied was associated with a greater reduction in the prevalence of patients meeting the criteria for metabolic syndrome compared to placebo, semaglutide 1 mg, insulin degludec, and insulin glargine. Although more evidence is needed, these data would support greater potential improvement in cardiovascular risk factor profile with tirzepatide treatment in people across the continuum of T2D.

Comparison of tirzepatide and dulaglutide on major adverse cardiovascular events in participants with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: SURPASS-CVOT design and baseline characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Tirzepatide, a once-weekly GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist, reduces blood glucose and body weight in people with type 2 diabetes. The cardiovascular (CV) safety and efficacy of tirzepatide have not been definitively assessed in a cardiovascular outcomes trial. METHODS: Tirzepatide is being studied in a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled CV outcomes trial. People with type 2 diabetes aged ≥40 years, with established atherosclerotic CV disease, HbA1c ≥7% to ≤10.5%, and body mass index ≥25 kg/m2 were randomized 1:1 to once weekly subcutaneous injection of either tirzepatide up to 15 mg or dulaglutide 1.5 mg. The primary outcome is time to first occurrence of any major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), defined as CV death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The trial is event-driven and planned to continue until ≥1,615 participants experience an adjudication-confirmed component of MACE. The primary analysis is noninferiority for time to first MACE of tirzepatide vs dulaglutide by demonstrating an upper confidence limit <1.05, which will also confirm superiority vs a putative placebo, and also to determine whether tirzepatide produces a greater CV benefit than dulaglutide (superiority analysis). RESULTS: Over 2 years, 13,299 people at 640 sites in 30 countries across all world regions were randomized. The mean age of randomized participants at baseline was 64.1 years, diabetes duration 14.7 years, HbA1c 8.4%, and BMI 32.6 kg/m2. Overall, 65.0% had coronary disease, of whom 47.3% reported prior myocardial infarction and 57.4% had prior coronary revascularization. 19.1% of participants had a prior stroke and 25.3% had peripheral artery disease. The trial is fully recruited and ongoing. CONCLUSION: SURPASS-CVOT will provide definitive evidence as to the CV safety and efficacy of tirzepatide as compared with dulaglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist with established CV benefit.

Achieving Normoglycemia With Tirzepatide: Analysis of SURPASS 1-4 Trials.

OBJECTIVE: Tirzepatide is a novel single-molecule glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide/glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, which demonstrated unprecedented improvements in glycemic control and body weight reduction, in the SURPASS phase 3 program. In this exploratory analysis, we aimed to characterize tirzepatide-treated participants who achieved HbA1c <5.7% and evaluate changes in clinical markers associated with long-term cardiometabolic health. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Baseline characteristics and change from baseline to week 40 for several efficacy and safety parameters were analyzed according to HbA1c attainment category (<5.7%, 5.7-6.5%, and >6.5%) using descriptive statistics in participants taking ≥75% of treatment doses, without rescue medication, in the SURPASS 1-4 trials (N = 3,229). Logistic regression models with tirzepatide doses adjusted as a covariate were used to obtain odds ratios and assess the impact of patient characteristics achieving an HbA1c <5.7%. RESULTS: Tirzepatide-treated participants who achieved HbA1c <5.7% were slightly younger, with a shorter duration of diabetes and lower HbA1c value at baseline compared with those who did not achieve HbA1c <5.7%. In addition, they showed greater improvements in HbA1c, body weight, waist circumference, blood pressure, liver enzymes, and lipid parameters without increasing hypoglycemia risk. CONCLUSIONS: Normoglycemia was unprecedently achieved in a significant proportion of participants in the SURPASS clinical program, without increasing hypoglycemia risk, and was associated with an overall improvement in metabolic health.

Transitioning to active-controlled trials to evaluate cardiovascular safety and efficacy of medications for type 2 diabetes.

Cardiovascular (CV) outcome trials (CVOTs) of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) therapies have mostly used randomized comparison with placebo to demonstrate non-inferiority to establish that the investigational drug does not increase CV risk. Recently, several glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) and sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) demonstrated reduced CV risk. Consequently, future T2DM therapy trials could face new ethical and clinical challenges if CVOTs continue with the traditional, placebo-controlled design. To address this challenge, here we review the methodologic considerations in transitioning to active-controlled CVOTs and describe the statistical design of a CVOT to assess non-inferiority versus an active comparator and if non-inferiority is proven, using novel methods to assess for superiority versus an imputed placebo. Specifically, as an example of such methodology, we introduce the statistical considerations used for the design of the "Effect of Tirzepatide versus Dulaglutide on Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE) in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes" trial (SURPASS CVOT). It is the first active-controlled CVOT assessing antihyperglycemic therapy in patients with T2DM designed to demonstrate CV efficacy of the investigational drug, tirzepatide, a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and GLP-1 RA, by establishing non-inferiority to an active comparator with proven CV efficacy, dulaglutide. To determine the efficacy margin for the hazard ratio, tirzepatide versus dulaglutide, for the composite CV outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (MACE-3), which is required to claim superiority versus an imputed placebo, the lower bound of efficacy of dulaglutide compared with placebo was estimated using a hierarchical Bayesian meta-analysis of placebo-controlled CVOTs of GLP-1 RAs. SURPASS CVOT was designed so that when the observed upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio is less than the lower bound of efficacy of dulaglutide, it demonstrates non-inferiority to dulaglutide by preserving at least 50% of the CV benefit of dulaglutide as well as statistical superiority of tirzepatide to a theoretical placebo (imputed placebo analysis). The presented methods adding imputed placebo comparison for efficacy assessment may serve as a model for the statistical design of future active-controlled CVOTs.

Tirzepatide cardiovascular event risk assessment: a pre-specified meta-analysis.

Tirzepatide is a novel, once weekly, dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist and is under development for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity. Its association with cardiovascular outcomes requires evaluation. This pre-specified cardiovascular meta-analysis included all seven randomized controlled trials with a duration of at least 26 weeks from the tirzepatide T2D clinical development program, SURPASS. The pre-specified primary objective of this meta-analysis was the comparison of the time to first occurrence of confirmed four-component major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE-4; cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke and hospitalized unstable angina) between pooled tirzepatide groups and control groups. A stratified Cox proportional hazards model, with treatment as a fixed effect and trial-level cardiovascular risk as the stratification factor, was used for the estimation of hazard ratios (HRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) comparing tirzepatide to control. Data from 4,887 participants treated with tirzepatide and 2,328 control participants were analyzed. Overall, 142 participants, 109 from the trial with high cardiovascular risk and 33 from the six trials with lower cardiovascular risk, had at least one MACE-4 event. The HRs comparing tirzepatide versus controls were 0.80 (95% CI, 0.57-1.11) for MACE-4; 0.90 (95% CI, 0.50-1.61) for cardiovascular death; and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.51-1.25) for all-cause death. No evidence of effect modifications was observed for any subgroups, although the evidence was stronger for participants with high cardiovascular risk. Tirzepatide did not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events in participants with T2D versus controls.

Tirzepatide versus insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes and increased cardiovascular risk (SURPASS-4): a randomised, open-label, parallel-group, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess efficacy and safety, with a special focus on cardiovascular safety, of the novel dual GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonist tirzepatide versus insulin glargine in adults with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk inadequately controlled on oral glucose-lowering medications. METHODS: This open-label, parallel-group, phase 3 study was done in 187 sites in 14 countries on five continents. Eligible participants, aged 18 years or older, had type 2 diabetes treated with any combination of metformin, sulfonylurea, or sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor, a baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) of 7·5-10·5% (58-91 mmol/mol), body-mass index of 25 kg/m2 or greater, and established cardiovascular disease or a high risk of cardiovascular events. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:3) via an interactive web-response system to subcutaneous injection of either once-per-week tirzepatide (5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg) or glargine (100 U/mL), titrated to reach fasting blood glucose of less than 100 mg/dL. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority (0·3% non-inferiority boundary) of tirzepatide 10 mg or 15 mg, or both, versus glargine in HbA1c change from baseline to 52 weeks. All participants were treated for at least 52 weeks, with treatment continued for a maximum of 104 weeks or until study completion to collect and adjudicate major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Safety measures were assessed over the full study period. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03730662. FINDINGS: Patients were recruited between Nov 20, 2018, and Dec 30, 2019. 3045 participants were screened, with 2002 participants randomly assigned to tirzepatide or glargine. 1995 received at least one dose of tirzepatide 5 mg (n=329, 17%), 10 mg (n=328, 16%), or 15 mg (n=338, 17%), or glargine (n=1000, 50%), and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. At 52 weeks, mean HbA1c changes with tirzepatide were -2·43% (SD 0·05) with 10 mg and -2·58% (0·05) with 15 mg, versus -1·44% (0·03) with glargine. The estimated treatment difference versus glargine was -0·99% (multiplicity adjusted 97·5% CI -1·13 to -0·86) for tirzepatide 10 mg and -1·14% (-1·28 to -1·00) for 15 mg, and the non-inferiority margin of 0·3% was met for both doses. Nausea (12-23%), diarrhoea (13-22%), decreased appetite (9-11%), and vomiting (5-9%) were more frequent with tirzepatide than glargine (nausea 2%, diarrhoea 4%, decreased appetite <1%, and vomiting 2%, respectively); most cases were mild to moderate and occurred during the dose-escalation phase. The percentage of participants with hypoglycaemia (glucose <54 mg/dL or severe) was lower with tirzepatide (6-9%) versus glargine (19%), particularly in participants not on sulfonylureas (tirzepatide 1-3% vs glargine 16%). Adjudicated MACE-4 events (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalisation for unstable angina) occurred in 109 participants and were not increased on tirzepatide compared with glargine (hazard ratio 0·74, 95% CI 0·51-1·08). 60 deaths (n=25 [3%] tirzepatide; n=35 [4%] glargine) occurred during the study. INTERPRETATION: In people with type 2 diabetes and elevated cardiovascular risk, tirzepatide, compared with glargine, demonstrated greater and clinically meaningful HbA1c reduction with a lower incidence of hypoglycaemia at week 52. Tirzepatide treatment was not associated with excess cardiovascular risk. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Designing, Conducting, Monitoring, and Analyzing Data from Pragmatic Randomized Clinical Trials: Proceedings from a Multi-stakeholder Think Tank Meeting.

In late 2018, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) outlined a framework for evaluating the possible use of real-world evidence (RWE) to support regulatory decision-making. This framework was created to facilitate studies that would generate high-quality RWE, including pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs), which are randomized trials designed to inform clinical or policy decisions by assessing the real-world effectiveness of an intervention. There is general agreement among experts that the use of existing healthcare and patient-generated data holds promise for making randomized trials more efficient, less costly, and more generalizable. Yet the benefits of relying on real-world data sources must be weighed against difficulties with ensuring data integrity and completeness. Additionally, appropriately monitoring patient safety in randomized trials of new drugs using healthcare system data that might not be available in real time can be quite difficult. Recognizing that these and other concerns are critical to the development and acceptability of PCTs, a group of stakeholders from academia, industry, professional organizations, regulatory bodies, government agencies, and patient advocates discussed a path forward for PCT growth and sustainability at a think tank meeting entitled "Monitoring and Analyzing Data from Pragmatic Streamlined Randomized Clinical Trials," which took place in January 2019 (Washington, DC). The goals of this meeting were to: (1) evaluate study design and methodological options specific to PCTs that have the potential to yield high-quality evidence; (2) discuss best practices to ensure data quality in PCTs; and (3) identify appropriate methods for study monitoring. Proceedings from the think tank meeting are summarized in this manuscript.

Effect of CETP inhibition with evacetrapib in patients with diabetes mellitus enrolled in the ACCELERATE trial.

BACKGROUND: High-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels are inversely associated with cardiovascular risk. Cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibition with evacetrapib results in a marked increase in HDL and reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels. We evaluated the impact of treatment with evacetrapib versus placebo in the subset of 8236 patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) enrolled in the Assessment of Clinical Effects of Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein Inhibition with Evacetrapib in Patients at a High Risk for Vascular Outcomes trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Time to first occurrence of any component of the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization, and hospitalization for unstable angina was compared among patients with DM randomized to treatment with evacetrapib (n=4127) or placebo (n=4109) over a median of 26 months of follow-up. The mean baseline LDL at initiation was 80 mg/dL with a mean baseline HDL of 44 mg/dL. In patients with DM, evacetrapib resulted in a 131% mean increase in HDL levels and a 32% mean decrease in LDL at 3 months that was sustained during the course of the trial. At 6 months, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels were lower with evacetrapib than placebo (7.08% vs 7.15%, p=0.023). Composite event rates were higher in patients with DM than without DM (Kaplan-Meier estimates: 15.2% vs 10.6%, HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.64, p<0.001). In the DM group, event rates for the composite endpoint (14.5% evacetrapib vs 16% placebo, HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07, p=0.38) and individual components of the composite were similar for both evacetrapib and placebo groups. No significant treatment interaction between treatment assignment and diabetes status was noted. CONCLUSION: Despite a favorable increase in HDL, and decreases in LDL and HbA1c levels in patients with DM, we observed no benefits of treatment with evacetrapib on prespecified clinical outcomes in this high-risk population.

Impact of Baseline Glycemic Control on Residual Cardiovascular Risk in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus and High-Risk Vascular Disease Treated With Statin Therapy.

Background The contemporary impact of glycemic control on patients with diabetes mellitus at high cardiovascular risk remains unclear. We evaluated the utility of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) as a marker of risk on the composite end point of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, and coronary revascularization in an optimally treated population with diabetes mellitus and established coronary artery disease enrolled in the ACCELERATE (Assessment of Clinical Effects of Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein Inhibition With Evacetrapib in Patients at a High Risk for Vascular Outcomes) trial. Methods and Results We included all patients with established diabetes mellitus and measured HbA1c (N=8145) and estimated Kaplan-Meier (KM) events rates, stratified by increasing baseline HbA1c levels censored at 30 months. We then performed a multivariable regression for the primary end point. Increasing baseline HbA1c was strongly associated with the occurrence of the primary end point (KM estimate, 12.6-18.2; P<0.001). Increasing baseline HbA1c was also associated with the triple end point of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and stroke (KM estimate, 7.8-11.3; P=0.003) as well as the individual end points of nonfatal myocardial infarction (KM estimate, 3.1-7.0; P<0.001), hospitalization for unstable angina (KM estimate, 1.8-5.0; P=0.003), and revascularization (KM estimate, 7.3-11.1; P=0.001), although not stroke (KM estimate, 1.4-2.4; P=0.45). The rates of cardiovascular mortality (KM estimate, 2.6-4.3; P=0.21) and all-cause mortality (KM estimate, 4.8-5.9; P=0.21) were similar regardless of baseline HbA1c levels. When adjusting for relevant baseline characteristics, baseline HbA1c was an independent predictor for the primary end point (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11; P=0.003). Conclusions Glycemic control, as measured by HbA1c, remains strongly and independently associated with cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients with diabetes mellitus on statin therapy. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01687998.

Plasma Aldosterone Levels Are Not Associated With Cardiovascular Events Among Patients With High-Risk Vascular Disease: Insights From the ACCELERATE Trial.

Background The failure of cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor torcetrapib was associated with an off-target increase in plasma aldosterone. We sought to evaluate the impact of evacetrapib on plasma aldosterone level and determine the association between plasma aldosterone level and major adverse cardiovascular events among patients with stable high-risk vascular disease enrolled in the ACCELERATE (Assessment of Clinical Effects of Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein Inhibition With Evacetrapib in Patients at a High Risk for Vascular Outcomes) trial. Methods and Results We included all patients with a plasma aldosterone level (N=1624) and determined the impact of evacetrapib exposure compared with placebo on plasma aldosterone levels after 12 months of treatment. Using baseline and postexposure aldosterone levels, hazard ratios for major adverse cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, hospitalization for unstable angina, and revascularization) with increasing quartile of baseline and percentage change in plasma aldosterone level at follow-up were calculated. The average age was 65.2 years, 75.7% were men, 93.7% were hypertensive, 73.3% were diabetic, and 57.6% had a prior myocardial infarction. Baseline plasma aldosterone level (85.2 [43, 150] versus 86.8 [43, 155] pmol/L; P=0.81) and follow-up percentage change (13.6% [-29, 88] versus 17.9% [-24, 87]; P=0.23) were similar between those who received evacetrapib and placebo. During median follow-up of 28 months, major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 263 patients (16.2%). The hazard ratios for increasing quartile of baseline or percentage change in plasma aldosterone level at follow-up were not significant for major adverse cardiovascular events. These findings remained consistent when adjusting for significant characteristics. Conclusions Exposure to evacetrapib did not result in significant change in plasma aldosterone levels compared with placebo. Among patients with stable high-risk vascular disease, plasma aldosterone levels were not a predictor for future cardiovascular events. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01687998.

Baseline fasting plasma insulin levels predict risk for major adverse cardiovascular events among patients with diabetes and high-risk vascular disease: Insights from the ACCELERATE trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite optimal treatment, type II diabetes mellitus remains associated with an increased risk for future cardiovascular events. We sought to determine the association between baseline fasting plasma insulin levels and major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type II diabetes mellitus and high-risk vascular disease enrolled in the ACCELERATE (Assessment of Clinical Effects of Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein Inhibition with Evacetrapib in Patients at a High Risk for Vascular Outcomes) trial. METHODS: We included all patients with type II diabetes mellitus who had a central laboratory measured fasting plasma insulin level drawn at baseline as part of the study protocol. Hazard ratios were generated for the risk of major adverse cardiovascular outcomes (composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina and coronary revascularization) with increasing quartile of baseline fasting plasma insulin level. We then performed a multivariable regression adjusting for significant baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Among 12,092 patients in ACCELERATE, 2042 patients with type II diabetes mellitus had a baseline fasting plasma insulin level drawn. Median follow-up was 28 months. The study population had a mean age of 66.6 years, 79.2% male and 96.2% had established coronary artery disease. During follow-up, major adverse cardiovascular outcomes occurred in 238 patients (11.6%); of these events, 177 were coronary revascularization (8.7%). We observed a statistically significant relationship between rates of revascularization and rising quartile of baseline fasting plasma insulin level which was not noted for the other individual components of major adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Patients with type II diabetes mellitus who underwent revascularization were noted to have significantly higher baseline fasting plasma insulin levels (27.7 vs 21.4 mU/L, p-value = 0.009) although baseline haemoglobin A1c (6.63% vs 6.55%), body mass index (31.5 vs 31.1 kg/m2) and medical therapy were otherwise similar to the group not undergoing revascularization. Following multivariable regression adjusting for significant characteristics including exposure to evacetrapib, the log of baseline fasting plasma insulin level was found to be an independent predictor for major adverse cardiovascular outcomes (hazard ratio = 1.36, 95% confidence interval = 1.09-1.69, p-value = 0.007); this was driven by need for future revascularization (hazard ratio = 1.56, 95% confidence interval = 1.21-2.00, p-value = 0.001). CONCLUSION: In a contemporary population of patients with type II diabetes mellitus and high-risk vascular disease on optimum medical therapy, baseline hyperinsulinaemia was an independent predictor for major adverse cardiovascular outcomes and need of future coronary revascularization. These results suggest a pathophysiological link between hyperinsulinaemia and progression of atherosclerotic vascular disease among diabetics.

ADCY9 Genetic Variants and Cardiovascular Outcomes With Evacetrapib in Patients With High-Risk Vascular Disease: A Nested Case-Control Study.

Importance: A pharmacogenetic analysis of dalcetrapib, a cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor, reported an association between a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the ADCY9 gene (rs1967309) and reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events despite a neutral result for the overall trial. Objective: To determine whether the association between the SNP in the ADCY9 gene and a reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events could be replicated for another cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor, evacetrapib, in patients with high-risk vascular disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: A nested case-control study examining the rs1967309 SNP in 1427 cases and 1532 matched controls selected from the 12 092-patient Assessment of Clinical Effects of Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein Inhibition with Evacetrapib in Patients at a High Risk for Vascular Outcomes (ACCELERATE) trial, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial conducted in patients with high-risk vascular disease randomized from October 2012 through December 2013. The genotyping was conducted from January 2017 to March 2017, and the data analyses were conducted from July 2017 to November 2017. Exposures: Evacetrapib, 130 mg, or matching placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary analyses used a conditional logistic regression model to assess the odds ratio (OR) for major adverse cardiovascular events for evacetrapib compared with placebo for each genotype. The basic model included adjustment for age, sex, and the top 5 principal components. An additional model included cardiovascular risk factors to adjust for potential bias in selecting control patients. The primary major adverse cardiovascular event end point was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Results: For patients with the AA genotype reported to demonstrate a beneficial effect from dalcetrapib, the OR for evacetrapib compared with placebo was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.69-1.12). For patients with the AG genotype, the OR was 1.04 (95% CI, 0.90-1.21). For patients with the GG genotype reported to show evidence for a harmful effect from dalcetrapib, the OR for evacetrapib was 1.18 (95% CI, 0.98-1.41). The interaction P value among the 3 genotypes was P = .17 and the trend P value was P = .06. When adjusted for cardiovascular risk factors, the OR for evacetrapib was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.73-1.19) for the AA genotype, 1.05 (95% CI, 0.91-1.22) for the AG genotype, and 1.02 (95% CI 0.85-1.24) for the GG genotype; interaction P = .71 and trend P = .59. Conclusions and Relevance: Pharmacogenetic analysis did not show a significant association between the ADCY9 SNP (rs1967309) and cardiovascular benefit or harm for the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor evacetrapib.

Evacetrapib and Cardiovascular Outcomes in High-Risk Vascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: The cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor evacetrapib substantially raises the high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level, reduces the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level, and enhances cellular cholesterol efflux capacity. We sought to determine the effect of evacetrapib on major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with high-risk vascular disease. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, we enrolled 12,092 patients who had at least one of the following conditions: an acute coronary syndrome within the previous 30 to 365 days, cerebrovascular atherosclerotic disease, peripheral vascular arterial disease, or diabetes mellitus with coronary artery disease. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either evacetrapib at a dose of 130 mg or matching placebo, administered daily, in addition to standard medical therapy. The primary efficacy end point was the first occurrence of any component of the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina. RESULTS: At 3 months, a 31.1% decrease in the mean LDL cholesterol level was observed with evacetrapib versus a 6.0% increase with placebo, and a 133.2% increase in the mean HDL cholesterol level was seen with evacetrapib versus a 1.6% increase with placebo. After 1363 of the planned 1670 primary end-point events had occurred, the data and safety monitoring board recommended that the trial be terminated early because of a lack of efficacy. After a median of 26 months of evacetrapib or placebo, a primary end-point event occurred in 12.9% of the patients in the evacetrapib group and in 12.8% of those in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.91 to 1.11; P=0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Although the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor evacetrapib had favorable effects on established lipid biomarkers, treatment with evacetrapib did not result in a lower rate of cardiovascular events than placebo among patients with high-risk vascular disease. (Funded by Eli Lilly; ACCELERATE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01687998 .).

Assessment of the clinical effects of cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibition with evacetrapib in patients at high-risk for vascular outcomes: Rationale and design of the ACCELERATE trial.

BACKGROUND: Potent pharmacologic inhibition of cholesteryl ester transferase protein by the investigational agent evacetrapib increases high-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 54% to 129%, reduces low-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 14% to 36%, and enhances cellular cholesterol efflux capacity. The ACCELERATE trial examines whether the addition of evacetrapib to standard medical therapy reduces the risk of cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality in patients with high-risk vascular disease. STUDY DESIGN: ACCELERATE is a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients qualified for enrollment if they have experienced an acute coronary syndrome within the prior 30 to 365 days, cerebrovascular accident, or transient ischemic attack; if they have peripheral vascular disease; or they have diabetes with coronary artery disease. A total of 12,092 patients were randomized to evacetrapib 130 mg or placebo daily in addition to standard medical therapy. The primary efficacy end point is time to first event of CV death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, or coronary revascularization. Treatment will continue until 1,670 patients reached the primary end point; at least 700 patients reach the key secondary efficacy end point of CV death, myocardial infarction, and stroke, and the last patient randomized has been followed up for at least 1.5 years. CONCLUSIONS: ACCELERATE will establish whether the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibition by evacetrapib improves CV outcomes in patients with high-risk vascular disease.

Diagnoses of gastrointestinal cancers after gastrointestinal bleeding in patients receiving clopidogrel or warfarin.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The association between gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and subsequent detection of GI cancer in patients using antiplatelet/anticoagulant medications is unclear. We investigated the association between the occurrence of GI bleeding and the detection of GI cancer and assessed whether this association differs in patients treated with clopidogrel or warfarin compared to non-treated patients. METHODS: A claims analysis was conducted using the Truven Health MarketScan(®) Research databases. Patients were grouped into the treatment cohort if they received a prescription for clopidogrel or warfarin or into the non-treatment cohort if they did not receive these medications. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for GI cancer diagnosed after GI bleeding. RESULTS: Overall, in the treatment cohort, patients who experienced a GI bleed were 6 times (HR: 5.64, 95% CI, 5.12, 6.21) more likely to be diagnosed with GI cancer compared with those without bleeding. In the non-treatment cohort patients were 13 times (HR: 13.34, 95% CI, 12.21, 14.58) more likely to be diagnosed with GI cancer after GI bleeding. The HRs of GI cancer were higher within 6 months of the first GI bleed and decreased remarkably thereafter. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that an episode of GI bleeding increased the rates of detection of GI cancers.

Transfusion outcomes in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting treated with prasugrel or clopidogrel: TRITON-TIMI 38 retrospective data analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Coronary artery bypass grafting-related bleeding and associated transfusion is a concern with dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndromes. The objective of the present study was to characterize a potential risk-adjusted difference in transfusion requirements between prasugrel and clopidogrel cohorts. METHODS: The data from 422 patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting from the TRial to assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by optimizing platelet InhibitioN with prasugrel Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 38 were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: We found no difference in baseline transfusion risk scores between cohorts. As predicted, the number of units of red blood cells transfused perioperatively correlated with the transfusion risk score (P < .0001). Overall, the 12-hour chest tube drainage volumes and platelet transfusion rates in the prasugrel cohort were significantly greater. However, no statistically significant differences were found in the number of red blood cell transfusions, total hemostatic components transfused, or total blood donor exposure. A significantly greater number of platelet units were transfused postoperatively in the prasugrel patients who underwent surgery within 5 days or less after withdrawal of drug. In an analysis adjusted for the predicted risk of mortality, total donor exposure was not associated with increased mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The use of prasugrel compared with clopidogrel was associated with greater 12-hour chest tube drainage volumes and platelet transfusion rates but without any significant differences in red blood cell transfusions, total hemostatic components transfused, or total blood donor exposure.

Mortality benefit with prasugrel in the TRITON-TIMI 38 coronary artery bypass grafting cohort: risk-adjusted retrospective data analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to characterize the bleeding, transfusion, and other outcomes of patients related to the timing of prasugrel or clopidogrel withdrawal before coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). BACKGROUND: There is little evidence to guide clinical decision making regarding the use of prasugrel in patients who may need urgent or emergency CABG. Experience with performing CABG in the presence of clopidogrel has raised concern about perioperative bleeding complications that are unresolved. METHODS: A subset of the TRITON-TIMI 38 study (Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition with Prasugrel-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 38), in which patients with acute coronary syndrome were randomized to treatment with aspirin and either clopidogrel or prasugrel, underwent isolated CABG (N = 346). A supplemental case report form was designed and administered, and the data combined with the existing TRITON-TIMI 38 database. Baseline imbalances were corrected for using elements of the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons predictive algorithm. RESULTS: A significantly higher mean 12-h chest tube blood loss (655 ± 580 ml vs. 503 ± 378 ml; p = 0.050) was observed with prasugrel compared with clopidogrel, without significant differences in red blood cell transfusion (2.1 U vs. 1.7 U; p = 0.442) or the total donor exposure (4.4 U vs. 3.0 U; p = 0.463). All-cause mortality was significantly reduced with prasugrel (2.31%) compared with 8.67% with clopidogrel (adjusted odds ratio: 0.26; p = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Despite an increase in observed bleeding, platelet transfusion, and surgical re-exploration for bleeding, prasugrel was associated with a lower rate of death after CABG compared with clopidogrel.

Relationship between exposure to prasugrel active metabolite and clinical outcomes in the TRITON-TIMI 38 substudy.

In TRITON-TIMI 38, levels of the prasugrel active metabolite (pras-AM) were measured in a population pharmacokinetic substudy that characterized the intrinsic and extrinsic factors influencing exposure. Higher exposure to the pras-AM was observed in low-weight or very elderly patients. The authors hypothesized that this higher exposure might explain the higher risk of non-coronary artery bypass graft (CABG)-related TIMI-related bleeding observed in these 2 patient populations. The relationship between estimated exposure to the pras-AM and clinical outcomes was assessed in 1159 prasugrel-treated patients enrolled in the substudy using multivariable logistic regression analysis. There was no relationship between pras-AM exposure and efficacy through 3 days or after 3 days. Higher estimated pras-AM exposure was associated with a higher incidence of non-CABG-related TIMI major or minor bleeding after 3 days (P < .05) but not through 3 days from start of study drug. Factors associated with increased risk for non-CABG-related TIMI bleeding (≥75 years and <60 kg) also identified subgroups with higher exposure to the pras-AM. Within low body weight and very elderly subgroups, bleeding was largely confined to patients having the highest exposure to the pras-AM, indicating that a prasugrel lower dose in these subgroups may reduce the risk of bleeding while maintaining efficacy.