Effects of a stepwise, structured LDL-C lowering strategy in patients post-acute coronary syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering constitutes a cornerstone of secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), yet a considerable number of patients do not achieve guideline-recommended LDL­C targets. The 2016 European guidelines recommended titration of LDL­C lowering medication in a set number of steps, starting with oral medication. We aimed to investigate the effects of this stepwise approach in post-acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. METHODS: In a multicentre, prospective, non-randomised trial, we evaluated a three-step strategy aiming to reduce LDL­C to ≤ 1.8 mmol/l in post-ACS patients with prior ASCVD and/or diabetes mellitus. Steps, undertaken every 4-6 weeks, included: 1) start high-intensity statin (HIST); 2) addition of ezetimibe; 3) addition of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors (PCSK9i). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving LDL-C ≤ 1.8 mmol/l after Steps 1 and 2 (using oral medications alone). Secondary outcomes examined the prevalence of meeting the target throughout all steps ( https://onderzoekmetmensen.nl/nl/trial/21157 ). RESULTS: Out of 999 patients, 84% (95% confidence intervals (CI): 81-86) achieved the LDL­C target using only statin and/or ezetimibe. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the percentages of patients meeting the LDL­C target after each step were 69% (95% CI: 67-72), 84% (95% CI: 81-86), and 87% (95% CI: 85-89), respectively. There were protocol deviations for 23, 38 and 23 patients at each respective step. CONCLUSION: Through stepwise intensification of lipid-lowering therapy, 84% of very high-risk post-ACS patients achieved an LDL­C target of ≤ 1.8 mmol/l with oral medications alone. Addition of PCSK9i further increased this rate to 87% (95% CI: 85-89).

Association of Low-Dose Colchicine With Incidence of Knee and Hip Replacements : Exploratory Analyses From a Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind Trial.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is a major contributor to pain and disability worldwide. Given that inflammation plays an important role in the development of osteoarthritis, anti-inflammatory drugs may slow disease progression. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether colchicine, 0.5 mg daily, reduces incident total knee replacements (TKRs) and total hip replacements (THRs). DESIGN: Exploratory analysis of the LoDoCo2 (Low-Dose Colchicine 2) randomized, controlled, double-blind trial. (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12614000093684). SETTING: 43 centers in Australia and the Netherlands. PATIENTS: 5522 patients with chronic coronary artery disease. INTERVENTION: Colchicine, 0.5 mg, or placebo once daily. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was time to first TKR or THR since randomization. All analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: A total of 2762 patients received colchicine and 2760 received placebo during a median follow-up of 28.6 months. During the trial, TKR or THR was performed in 68 patients (2.5%) in the colchicine group and 97 (3.5%) in the placebo group (incidence rate, 0.90 vs. 1.30 per 100 person-years; incidence rate difference, -0.40 [95% CI, -0.74 to -0.06] per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 0.69 [CI, 0.51 to 0.95]). In sensitivity analyses, similar results were obtained when patients with gout at baseline were excluded and when joint replacements that occurred in the first 3 and 6 months of follow-up were omitted. LIMITATION: LoDoCo2 was not designed to investigate the effect of colchicine in osteoarthritis of the knee or hip and did not collect information specifically on osteoarthritis. CONCLUSION: In this exploratory analysis of the LoDoCo2 trial, use of colchicine, 0.5 mg daily, was associated with a lower incidence of TKR and THR. Further investigation of colchicine therapy to slow disease progression in osteoarthritis is warranted. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Drivers of mortality in patients with chronic coronary disease in the low-dose colchicine 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Low-dose colchicine significantly reduces the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with chronic coronary disease. An increase of non-cardiovascular death raised concerns about its safety. This study reports cause-specific mortality and baseline predictors of mortality in the Low-Dose Colchicine 2 (LoDoCo2) trial. METHODS: Patients with chronic coronary disease were randomly allocated to colchicine 0.5 mg once daily or placebo on a background of optimal medical therapy. Cause-specific mortality data were analysed, stratified by treatment status. Multivariate analyses were performed to examine the predictors of mortality as well as cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular death. RESULTS: After a median 28.6 months follow-up, 133 out of 5522 participants (2.4%) died. Forty-five deaths were cardiovascular (colchicine versus placebo: 20 [0.7%] versus 25 [0.9%], HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.44-1.44), while eighty-eight deaths were non-cardiovascular (53 [1.9%] versus 35 [1.3%]; HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.99-2.31). Forty-eight deaths were due to cancer (26 [0.9%] versus 22 [0.8%]), thirteen end-stage pulmonary disease (9 [0.3%] versus 4 [0.1%]), eight infection (4 [0.1%] versus 4 [0.1%]), five dementia (4 [0.1%] versus 1 [0.0%]) and five related multiple organ failure (3 [0.1%] versus 2 [0.1%]). Multivariable analysis demonstrated age > 65 years was the only independent baseline characteristic associated with non-cardiovascular death (HR, 3.65; 95% CI, 2.06-6.47). CONCLUSIONS: During the LoDoCo2 trial, assignment to colchicine was not associated with an adverse effect on any specific causes of death. Most deaths were related to non-cardiovascular causes, underscoring the importance of comorbidities as drivers of all-cause mortality in patients with chronic coronary disease.

Colchicine in Patients with Chronic Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from a recent trial has shown that the antiinflammatory effects of colchicine reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with recent myocardial infarction, but evidence of such a risk reduction in patients with chronic coronary disease is limited. METHODS: In a randomized, controlled, double-blind trial, we assigned patients with chronic coronary disease to receive 0.5 mg of colchicine once daily or matching placebo. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, spontaneous (nonprocedural) myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or ischemia-driven coronary revascularization. The key secondary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, spontaneous myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke. RESULTS: A total of 5522 patients underwent randomization; 2762 were assigned to the colchicine group and 2760 to the placebo group. The median duration of follow-up was 28.6 months. A primary end-point event occurred in 187 patients (6.8%) in the colchicine group and in 264 patients (9.6%) in the placebo group (incidence, 2.5 vs. 3.6 events per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57 to 0.83; P<0.001). A key secondary end-point event occurred in 115 patients (4.2%) in the colchicine group and in 157 patients (5.7%) in the placebo group (incidence, 1.5 vs. 2.1 events per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.92; P = 0.007). The incidence rates of spontaneous myocardial infarction or ischemia-driven coronary revascularization (composite end point), cardiovascular death or spontaneous myocardial infarction (composite end point), ischemia-driven coronary revascularization, and spontaneous myocardial infarction were also significantly lower with colchicine than with placebo. The incidence of death from noncardiovascular causes was higher in the colchicine group than in the placebo group (incidence, 0.7 vs. 0.5 events per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.99 to 2.31). CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial involving patients with chronic coronary disease, the risk of cardiovascular events was significantly lower among those who received 0.5 mg of colchicine once daily than among those who received placebo. (Funded by the National Health Medical Research Council of Australia and others; LoDoCo2 Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12614000093684.).

The effect of low-dose colchicine in patients with stable coronary artery disease: The LoDoCo2 trial rationale, design, and baseline characteristics.

Because patients with stable coronary artery disease are at continued risk of major atherosclerotic events despite effective secondary prevention strategies, there is a need to continue to develop additional safe, effective and well-tolerated therapies for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. RATIONALE AND DESIGN: The LoDoCo (Low Dose Colchicine) pilot trial showed that the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine 0.5 mg once daily appears safe and effective for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Colchicine's low cost and long-term safety suggest that if its efficacy can be confirmed in a rigorous trial, repurposing it for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease would have the potential to impact the global burden of cardiovascular disease. LoDoCo2 is an investigator-initiated, international, multicentre, double-blind, event driven trial in which 5522 patients with stable coronary artery disease tolerant to colchicine during a 30-day run-in phase have been randomized to colchicine 0.5 mg daily or matching placebo on a background of optimal medical therapy. The study will have 90% power to detect a 30% reduction in the composite primary endpoint: cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke and ischemia-driven coronary revascularization. Adverse events potentially related to the use of colchicine will also be collected, including late gastrointestinal intolerance, neuropathy, myopathy, myositis, and neutropenia. CONCLUSION: The LoDoCo2 Trial will provide information on the efficacy and safety of low-dose colchicine for secondary prevention in patients with stable coronary artery disease.

Prehospital versus hospital fibrinolytic therapy using automated versus cardiologist electrocardiographic diagnosis of myocardial infarction: abortion of myocardial infarction and unjustified fibrinolytic therapy.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the incidence of abortion of myocardial infarction and of unjustified fibrinolysis by using automated versus cardiologist-assisted diagnosis of acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction. The results of prehospital diagnosis and treatment (2 cities in the Netherlands) were compared with those of inhospital treatment. Unjustified fibrinolysis must be differentiated from justified thrombolysis resulting in aborted myocardial infarction. Both have the absence of a significant rise in cardiac enzymes in common. In aborted myocardial infarction, this is a result of timely reperfusion; in unjustified thrombolysis, this is the result of an incorrect diagnosis. METHODS: In the city of Rotterdam, 118 patients were treated before hospitalization for myocardial infarction, diagnosed through the use of a mobile computer electrocardiogram; in the city of Nijmegen, 132 patients were treated before hospitalization with the use of transtelephonic transmission of the electrocardiogram to the coronary care unit and judged by a cardiologist. Their data were compared with those of 269 patients treated inhospital in the city of Arnhem, using the same electrocardiographic criteria. Abortion of myocardial infarction was diagnosed as the absence of a significant rise in cardiac enzymes and the presence of resolution of chest pain and 50% of ST-segment deviation within 2 hours after onset of therapy. Lacking these, the diagnosis of unjustified fibrinolytic therapy was made. RESULTS: Unjustified treatment occurred in 8 (3.2%) prehospital-treated patients (4 in Rotterdam and 4 in Nijmegen). Of the inhospital-treated patients in Arnhem, 5 (1.9%) were treated unjustifiably (P =.49). Aborted myocardial infarction occurred in 15.3% and 18.2% in Rotterdam and Nijmegen, respectively, against 4.5% in inhospital treatment in Arnhem (P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Abortion of myocardial infarction is associated with prehospital thrombolysis. Unjustified fibrinolysis for acute myocardial infarction occurs in prehospital fibrinolysis as frequently as in the inhospital setting. The use of different electrocardiographic methods for diagnosing acute myocardial infarction does not appear to make any difference.

Prehospital thrombolysis with reteplase: the Nijmegen/Rotterdam study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this observational study was to assess time from electrocardiogram diagnosis to treatment and time from pain onset to treatment with double bolus reteplase compared to current therapy with streptokinase or bolus anistreplase in 2 cities (Rotterdam and Nijmegen) in the Netherlands, where prehospital thrombolysis is an established way of treatment of acute myocardial infarction. METHODS: Prehospital thrombolysis is performed using electrocardiogram diagnosis by the ambulance service as well as bolus anistreplase for treatment in Nijmegen, and streptokinase infusion in Rotterdam. Reteplase or anistreplase/streptokinase was assigned open label to patients according to order of presentation on a 1-to-1 basis. All patients were treated with nitrates sublingually and aspirin orally. Time intervals were recorded by the ambulance staff. RESULTS: In total, 250 patients were treated between April 1, 1999 and August 1, 2000. Reteplase was used in 120 patients and anistreplase/streptokinase in 130 patients. Using double bolus reteplase resulted in a significantly shorter time to treatment: a median of 81 minutes compared to a median of 104 minutes with the established therapy (P <.0001). There were no differences in mortality, aborted myocardial infarction, hemorrhagic stroke or the need for rescue angioplasty between the groups. CONCLUSION: In prehospital thrombolysis, double bolus reteplase is associated with a shorter time to treatment than bolus anistreplase or infusion of streptokinase.