Effects of icosapent ethyl according to baseline residual risk in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: results from REDUCE-IT.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Icosapent ethyl lowers triglycerides and significantly reduces major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), though treatment effects may vary between individuals. This study aimed to determine the relative and absolute effects of icosapent ethyl on MACE according to baseline CVD risk in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). METHODS: Participants from REDUCE-IT with ASCVD were included (n = 5,785). The primary outcome was 3-point MACE, i.e. non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. Baseline 5-year risk of MACE was estimated using the ESC guideline-recommended SMART2 risk score. Modification of the relative treatment effects of icosapent ethyl by baseline risk was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models including a treatment-by-risk interaction. Next, treatment effects were assessed stratified by quartiles of baseline risk. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 4.8 years (interquartile range 3.2-5.3), MACE occurred in 361 vs 489 patients in the icosapent ethyl vs placebo group (95% confidence interval [CI]); hazard ratio (HR) 0.72 (0.63-0.82), absolute risk reduction (ARR) 4.4% (2.6-6.2%), number needed to treat (NNT) 23 (16-38), 5-year Kaplan-Meier estimated cumulative incidence reduction (CIR) 5.7% (3.5-7.9%). Icosapent ethyl significantly reduced MACE in all risk quartiles, with an HR (95% CI) of 0.62 (0.43-0.88), 0.66 (0.48-0.92), 0.69 (0.53-0.90), and 0.78 (0.63-0.96) respectively (p for treatment-by-risk interaction = 0.106). The ARR (95% CI) increased across risk quartiles, i.e. was 3.9% (1.0-6.8%), 4.3% (1.2-7.3%), 5.1% (1.4-8.7%), and 5.6% (1.3-10.0%) respectively. This translates to NNTs (95% CI) of 26 (15-98), 24 (14-84), 20 (11-70), and 18 (10-77). The 5-year CIR (95% CI) was 4.8% (1.3-8.2%), 5.0% (1.3-8.7%), 6.1% (1.7-10.5%), and 7.7% (2.3-13.2%) respectively. Consistent results were obtained for 5-point MACE, additionally including coronary revascularization and unstable angina. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with ASCVD and elevated triglyceride levels, icosapent ethyl significantly reduces the risk of MACE irrespective of baseline CVD risk, though absolute benefits are largest for patients at the highest risk.

Empagliflozin after Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin improves cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure, patients with type 2 diabetes who are at high cardiovascular risk, and patients with chronic kidney disease. The safety and efficacy of empagliflozin in patients who have had acute myocardial infarction are unknown. METHODS: In this event-driven, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients who had been hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction and were at risk for heart failure to receive empagliflozin at a dose of 10 mg daily or placebo in addition to standard care within 14 days after admission. The primary end point was a composite of hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause as assessed in a time-to-first-event analysis. RESULTS: A total of 3260 patients were assigned to receive empagliflozin and 3262 to receive placebo. During a median follow-up of 17.9 months, a first hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause occurred in 267 patients (8.2%) in the empagliflozin group and in 298 patients (9.1%) in the placebo group, with incidence rates of 5.9 and 6.6 events, respectively, per 100 patient-years (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.06; P = 0.21). With respect to the individual components of the primary end point, a first hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 118 patients (3.6%) in the empagliflozin group and in 153 patients (4.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.98), and death from any cause occurred in 169 (5.2%) and 178 (5.5%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.19). Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of empagliflozin and were similar in the two trial groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients at increased risk for heart failure after acute myocardial infarction, treatment with empagliflozin did not lead to a significantly lower risk of a first hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause than placebo. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly; EMPACT-MI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04509674.).

Effect of Reconstituted Human Apolipoprotein A-I on Recurrent Ischemic Events in Survivors of Acute MI.

BACKGROUND: The AEGIS-II trial hypothesized that CSL112, an intravenous formulation of human apoA-I, would lower the risk of plaque disruption, decreasing the risk of recurrent events such as myocardial infarction (MI) among high-risk patients with MI. OBJECTIVES: This exploratory analysis evaluates the effect of CSL112 therapy on the incidence of cardiovascular (CV) death and recurrent MI. METHODS: The AEGIS-II trial was an international, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that randomized 18,219 high-risk acute MI patients to 4 weekly infusions of apoA-I (6 g CSL112) or placebo. RESULTS: The incidence of the composite of CV death and type 1 MI was 11% to 16% lower in the CSL112 group over the study period (HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.7-1.0; P = 0.056 at day 90; HR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.74-0.99; P = 0.048 at day 180; and HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.79-1.01; P = 0.07 at day 365). Similarly, the incidence of CV death or any MI was numerically lower in CSL112-treated patients throughout the follow-up period (HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.80-1.05 at day 90, HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.79-0.996 at day 180, HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.83-1.01 at day 365). The effect of CSL112 treatment on MI was predominantly observed for type 1 MI and type 4b (MI due to stent thrombosis). CONCLUSIONS: Although CSL112 did not significantly reduce the occurrence of the primary study endpoints, patients treated with CSL112 infusions had numerically lower rates of CV death and MI, type-1 MI, and stent thrombosis-related MI compared with placebo. These findings could suggest a role of apoA-I in reducing subsequent plaque disruption events via enhanced cholesterol efflux. Further prospective data would be needed to confirm these observations.

Apolipoprotein A1 Infusions and Cardiovascular Outcomes after Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular events frequently recur after acute myocardial infarction, and low cholesterol efflux - a process mediated by apolipoprotein A1, which is the main protein in high-density lipoprotein - has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. CSL112 is human apolipoprotein A1 derived from plasma that increases cholesterol efflux capacity. Whether infusions of CSL112 can reduce the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events after acute myocardial infarction is unclear. METHODS: We conducted an international, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients with acute myocardial infarction, multivessel coronary artery disease, and additional cardiovascular risk factors. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either four weekly infusions of 6 g of CSL112 or matching placebo, with the first infusion administered within 5 days after the first medical contact for the acute myocardial infarction. The primary end point was a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes from randomization through 90 days of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 18,219 patients were included in the trial (9112 in the CSL112 group and 9107 in the placebo group). There was no significant difference between the groups in the risk of a primary end-point event at 90 days of follow-up (439 patients [4.8%] in the CSL112 group vs. 472 patients [5.2%] in the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.05; P = 0.24), at 180 days of follow-up (622 patients [6.9%] vs. 683 patients [7.6%]; hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.01), or at 365 days of follow-up (885 patients [9.8%] vs. 944 patients [10.5%]; hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.02). The percentage of patients with adverse events was similar in the two groups; a higher number of hypersensitivity events was reported in the CSL112 group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with acute myocardial infarction, multivessel coronary artery disease, and additional cardiovascular risk factors, four weekly infusions of CSL112 did not result in a lower risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes than placebo through 90 days. (Funded by CSL Behring; AEGIS-II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03473223.).

Relating Lipoprotein(a) Concentrations to Cardiovascular Event Risk After Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Comparison of 3 Tests.

BACKGROUND: Lipoprotein(a) is a risk factor for cardiovascular events and modifies the benefit of PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitors. Lipoprotein(a) concentration can be measured with immunoassays reporting mass or molar concentration or a reference measurement system using mass spectrometry. Whether the relationships between lipoprotein(a) concentrations and cardiovascular events in a high-risk cohort differ across lipoprotein(a) methods is unknown. We compared the prognostic and predictive value of these types of lipoprotein(a) tests for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). METHODS: The ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab) compared the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab with placebo in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome. We compared risk of a MACE in the placebo group and MACE risk reduction with alirocumab according to baseline lipoprotein(a) concentration measured by Siemens N-latex nephelometric immunoassay (IA-mass; mg/dL), Roche Tina-Quant turbidimetric immunoassay (IA-molar; nmol/L), and a noncommercial mass spectrometry-based test (MS; nmol/L). Lipoprotein(a) values were transformed into percentiles for comparative modeling. Natural cubic splines estimated continuous relationships between baseline lipoprotein(a) and outcomes in each treatment group. Event rates were also determined across baseline lipoprotein(a) quartiles defined by each assay. RESULTS: Among 11 970 trial participants with results from all 3 tests, baseline median (Q1, Q3) lipoprotein(a) concentrations were 21.8 (6.9, 60.0) mg/dL, 45.0 (13.2, 153.8) nmol/L, and 42.2 (14.3, 143.1) nmol/L for IA-mass, IA-molar, and MS, respectively. The strongest correlation was between IA-molar and MS (r=0.990), with nominally weaker correlations between IA-mass and MS (r=0.967) and IA-mass and IA-molar (r=0.972). Relationships of lipoprotein(a) with MACE risk in the placebo group were nearly identical with each test, with estimated cumulative incidences differing by ≤0.4% across lipoprotein(a) percentiles, and all were incrementally prognostic after accounting for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (all spline P≤0.0003). Predicted alirocumab treatment effects were also nearly identical for each of the 3 tests, with estimated treatment hazard ratios differing by ≤0.07 between tests across percentiles and nominally less relative risk reduction by alirocumab at lower percentiles for all 3 tests. Absolute risk reduction with alirocumab increased with increasing lipoprotein(a) measured by each test, with significant linear trends across quartiles. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with recent acute coronary syndrome, 3 lipoprotein(a) tests were similarly prognostic for MACE in the placebo group and predictive of MACE reductions with alirocumab at the cohort level. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01663402.

Natriuretic peptides, body mass index and heart failure risk: Pooled analyses of SAVOR-TIMI 53, DECLARE-TIMI 58 and CAMELLIA-TIMI 61.

AIM: N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations are lower in patients with obesity. The interaction between body mass index (BMI) and NT-proBNP with respect to heart failure risk remains incompletely defined. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data were pooled across three randomized clinical trials enrolling predominantly patients who were overweight or obese with established cardiometabolic disease: SAVOR-TIMI 53, DECLARE-TIMI 58 and CAMELLIA-TIMI 61. Hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) was examined across strata of baseline BMI and NT-proBNP. The effect of dapagliflozin versus placebo was assessed for a treatment interaction across BMI categories in patients with or without an elevated baseline NT-proBNP (≥125 pg/ml). Among 24 455 patients, the median NT-proBNP was 96 (interquartile range [IQR]: 43-225) pg/ml and the median BMI was 33 (IQR 29-37) kg/m2, with 68% of patients having a BMI ≥30 kg/m2. There was a significant inverse association between NT-proBNP and BMI which persisted after adjustment for all clinical variables (p < 0.001). Within any range of NT-proBNP, those at higher BMI had higher risk of HHF at 2 years (comparing BMI <30 vs. ≥40 kg/m2 for NT-proBNP ranges of <125, 125-<450 and ≥450 pg/ml: 0.0% vs. 0.6%, 1.3% vs. 4.0%, and 8.1% vs. 13.8%, respectively), which persisted after multivariable adjustment (adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj] 7.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.16-17.66, HRadj 3.22 [95% CI 2.13-4.86], and HRadj 1.87 [95% CI 1.35-2.60], respectively). In DECLARE-TIMI 58, dapagliflozin versus placebo consistently reduced HHF across BMI categories in those with an elevated NT-proBNP (p-trend for HR across BMI = 0.60), with a pattern of greater absolute risk reduction (ARR) at higher BMI (ARR for BMI <30 to ≥40 kg/m2: 2.2% to 4.7%; p-trend = 0.059). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of HHF varies across BMI categories for any given range of circulating NT-proBNP. These findings showcase the importance of considering BMI when applying NT-proBNP for heart failure risk stratification, particularly for patients with low-level elevations in NT-proBNP (125-<450 pg/ml) where there appears to be a clinically meaningful absolute and relative risk gradient.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin Compared with Aspirin Alone in the COMPASS Trial: A US Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily with aspirin 100 mg daily was shown to be better than aspirin 100 mg daily for preventing cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke or myocardial infarction in patients with either stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). The cost-effectiveness of this regimen in this population is essential for decision-makers to know. METHODS: US direct healthcare system costs (in USD) were applied to hospitalized events, procedures and study drugs utilized by all patients. We determined the mean cost per participant for the full duration of the trial (mean follow-up of 23 months) plus quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over a lifetime using a two-state Markov model with 1-year cycle length. Sensitivity analyses were performed on the price of rivaroxaban and the annual discontinuation rate. RESULTS: The costs of events and procedures were reduced for Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) patients who received rivaroxaban 2.5 mg orally (BID) plus acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) compared with ASA alone. Total costs were higher for the combination group ($7426 versus $4173) after considering acquisition costs of the study drug. Over a lifetime, patients receiving rivaroxaban plus ASA incurred $27,255 more and gained 1.17 QALYs compared with those receiving ASA alone resulting in an ICER of $23,295/QALY. ICERs for PAD only and polyvascular disease subgroups were lower. CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID plus ASA compared with ASA alone was cost-effective (high value) in the USA. COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01776424.

Restrictive or Liberal Transfusion Strategy in Myocardial Infarction and Anemia.

BACKGROUND: A strategy of administering a transfusion only when the hemoglobin level falls below 7 or 8 g per deciliter has been widely adopted. However, patients with acute myocardial infarction may benefit from a higher hemoglobin level. METHODS: In this phase 3, interventional trial, we randomly assigned patients with myocardial infarction and a hemoglobin level of less than 10 g per deciliter to a restrictive transfusion strategy (hemoglobin cutoff for transfusion, 7 or 8 g per deciliter) or a liberal transfusion strategy (hemoglobin cutoff, <10 g per deciliter). The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction or death at 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 3504 patients were included in the primary analysis. The mean (±SD) number of red-cell units that were transfused was 0.7±1.6 in the restrictive-strategy group and 2.5±2.3 in the liberal-strategy group. The mean hemoglobin level was 1.3 to 1.6 g per deciliter lower in the restrictive-strategy group than in the liberal-strategy group on days 1 to 3 after randomization. A primary-outcome event occurred in 295 of 1749 patients (16.9%) in the restrictive-strategy group and in 255 of 1755 patients (14.5%) in the liberal-strategy group (risk ratio modeled with multiple imputation for incomplete follow-up, 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99 to 1.34; P = 0.07). Death occurred in 9.9% of the patients with the restrictive strategy and in 8.3% of the patients with the liberal strategy (risk ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.47); myocardial infarction occurred in 8.5% and 7.2% of the patients, respectively (risk ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.49). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute myocardial infarction and anemia, a liberal transfusion strategy did not significantly reduce the risk of recurrent myocardial infarction or death at 30 days. However, potential harms of a restrictive transfusion strategy cannot be excluded. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; MINT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02981407.).

Dyspnea-Related Ticagrelor Discontinuation After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Nearly 20% of patients on ticagrelor experience dyspnea, which may lead to treatment discontinuation in up to one-third of cases. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of dyspnea-related ticagrelor discontinuation after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: In the TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention) trial, after 3 months of ticagrelor plus aspirin, patients were maintained on ticagrelor and randomized to aspirin or placebo for 1 year. The occurrence of dyspnea associated with ticagrelor discontinuation was evaluated among all patients enrolled in the trial. A landmark analysis was performed at 3 months after PCI, that is, the time of randomization. Predictors of dyspnea-related ticagrelor discontinuation were obtained from multivariable Cox regression with stepwise selection of candidate variables. RESULTS: The incidence of dyspnea-related ticagrelor discontinuation was 6.4% and 9.1% at 3 and 15 months after PCI, respectively. Independent predictors included Asian race (lower risk), smoking, prior PCI, hypercholesterolemia, prior coronary artery bypass, peripheral artery disease, obesity, and older age. Among 179 patients who discontinued ticagrelor because of dyspnea after randomization, ticagrelor monotherapy was not associated with a higher risk of subsequent ischemic events (composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin (5.0% vs 7.1%; P = 0.566). CONCLUSIONS: In the TWILIGHT trial, dyspnea-related ticagrelor discontinuation occurred in almost 1 in 10 patients and tended to occur earlier rather than late after PCI. Several demographic and clinical conditions predicted its occurrence, and their assessment may help identify subjects at risk for therapy nonadherence.

Bleeding and Ischemic Risks of Ticagrelor Monotherapy After Coronary Interventions.

BACKGROUND: In TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention), among high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), ticagrelor monotherapy vs continuation of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and ticagrelor after completing a 3-month course of DAPT was associated with reduced bleeding, without an increase in ischemic events. OBJECTIVES: This investigation sought to study the clinical benefit of ticagrelor monotherapy vs DAPT by simultaneously modeling its associated potential bleeding benefits and ischemic harms on an individual patient basis. METHODS: Multivariable Cox regression models for: 1) Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 (BARC-2/3/5); and 2) cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal ischemic stroke (major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event [MACCE]) were developed using stepwise forward variable selection. The coefficients in the BARC-2/3/5 and MACCE models were used to calculate bleeding and ischemic risk scores, respectively, for each patient (excluding the coefficient for randomized treatment). RESULTS: In the total study group (N = 7,119), BARC-2/3/5 occurred in 391 (5.5%) patients, and MACCE occurred in 258 (3.6%). There was a consistent reduction in bleeding events associated with ticagrelor monotherapy compared with DAPT across both bleeding and ischemic risk strata (P interaction = 0.54 and 0.11, respectively). Importantly, this benefit associated with ticagrelor monotherapy was not offset by an increase in MACCE at any level of bleeding or ischemic risk. CONCLUSIONS: Three months after PCI, discontinuing aspirin and maintaining ticagrelor monotherapy reduces bleeding in both higher-bleeding risk and lower-bleeding risk patients compared with continued DAPT. This benefit does not appear to be offset by greater ischemic risk. (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention [TWILIGHT]; NCT02270242).

Defining Strategies of Modulation of Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Consensus Document from the Academic Research Consortium.

Antiplatelet therapy is the mainstay of pharmacologic treatment to prevent thrombotic or ischemic events in patients with coronary artery disease treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and those treated medically for an acute coronary syndrome. The use of antiplatelet therapy comes at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding complications. Defining the optimal intensity of platelet inhibition according to the clinical presentation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and individual patient factors is a clinical challenge. Modulation of antiplatelet therapy is a medical action that is frequently performed to balance the risk of thrombotic or ischemic events and the risk of bleeding. This aim may be achieved by reducing (ie, de-escalation) or increasing (ie, escalation) the intensity of platelet inhibition by changing the type, dose, or number of antiplatelet drugs. Because de-escalation or escalation can be achieved in different ways, with a number of emerging approaches, confusion arises with terminologies that are often used interchangeably. To address this issue, this Academic Research Consortium collaboration provides an overview and definitions of different strategies of antiplatelet therapy modulation for patients with coronary artery disease, including but not limited to those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and consensus statements on standardized definitions.

Impact of chronic kidney disease and diabetes on clinical outcomes in women undergoing PCI.

BACKGROUND: For women undergoing drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation, the individual and combined impact of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and diabetes mellitus (DM) on outcomes is uncertain. AIMS: We sought to assess the impact of CKD and DM on prognosis in women after DES implantation. METHODS: We pooled patient-level data on women from 26 randomised controlled trials comparing stent types. Women receiving DES were stratified into 4 groups based on CKD (defined as creatine clearance <60 mL/min) and DM status. The primary outcome at 3 years after percutaneous coronary intervention was the composite of all-cause death or myocardial infarction (MI); secondary outcomes included cardiac death, stent thrombosis and target lesion revascularisation. RESULTS: Among 4,269 women, 1,822 (42.7%) had no CKD/DM, 978 (22.9%) had CKD alone, 981 (23.0%) had DM alone, and 488 (11.4%) had both conditions. The risk of all-cause death or MI was not increased in women with CKD alone (adjusted hazard ratio [adj. HR] 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.88-1.61) nor DM alone (adj. HR 1.27, 95% CI: 0.94-1.70), but was significantly higher in women with both conditions (adj. HR 2.64, 95% CI: 1.95-3.56; interaction p-value <0.001). CKD and DM in combination were associated with an increased risk of all secondary outcomes, whereas alone, each condition was only associated with all-cause death and cardiac death. CONCLUSIONS: Among women receiving DES, the combined presence of CKD and DM was associated with a higher risk of the composite of death or MI and of any secondary outcome, whereas alone, each condition was associated with an increase in all-cause and cardiac death.

Lipoprotein(a) and the Effect of Alirocumab on Revascularization After Acute Coronary Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Many patients require revascularization after index acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Lipoprotein(a) is thought to play a pathogenic role in atherothrombosis. In ODYSSEY OUTCOMES, alirocumab reduced major adverse cardiovascular events after ACS, with greater reduction among those with higher lipoprotein(a) levels. We explored whether risk of revascularization after ACS was modified by the level of lipoprotein(a) and treatment with alirocumab or placebo. METHODS: In ODYSSEY OUTCOMES alirocumab was compared with placebo in 18,924 patients with ACS and elevated atherogenic lipoprotein levels despite optimized statin treatment. In this post hoc analysis, treatment effects are summarized using competing risks proportional hazard models. RESULTS: A total of 1559 (8.2%) patients had coronary, 204 (1.1%) had limb, and 40 (0.2%) had carotid revascularization. Alirocumab reduced coronary revascularization (2.8 vs 3.2 events per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.88 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.80-0.97]; P = 0.01) and any revascularization (3.2 vs 3.7 events per 100 patient-years; HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.78-0.94]; P = 0.001). Baseline lipoprotein(a) quartile was directly associated with risk of coronary or any revascularization in the placebo arm and inversely related to treatment HRs (all P for trend < 0.01). Alirocumab produced the greatest reduction of coronary revascularization in patients with baseline lipoprotein(a) in the top quartile (≥ 59.6 mg/dL; HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.57-0.84]), but no apparent reduction in the bottom quartile (HR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.82-1.22]). Findings were similar for the effect of alirocumab on any revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: Alirocumab reduced revascularization rates after ACS. The risk of revascularization and reduction in that risk with alirocumab were greatest in patients with elevated lipoprotein(a) at baseline.

Femoral Vascular Closure Devices and Bleeding, Hemostasis, and Ambulation Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Background The effectiveness of vascular closure devices (VCDs) to reduce bleeding after transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention remains unsettled. Methods and Results Participants in the REGULATE-PCI (Effect of the REG1 anticoagulation system versus bivalirudin on outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention) trial who underwent transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention with VCD implantation were compared with those who underwent manual compression. The primary effectiveness end point was type 2, 3, or 5 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium access site bleeding at day 3. Univariate and multivariate analyses were adjusted by the inverse probability weighting method using propensity score. Time to hemostasis and time to ambulation were compared between groups. Of the 1580 patients who underwent transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention, 1004 (63.5%) underwent VCD implantation and 576 (36.5%) had manual compression. The primary effectiveness end point occurred in 64 (6.4%) participants in the VCD group and in 38 (6.6%) participants in the manual compression group (inverse probability weighting-adjusted odds ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.77-1.36]; P=0.89). There were statistically significant 2-way interactions between VCD use and female sex, chronic kidney disease, and use of high-potency P2Y12 inhibition (ticagrelor or prasugrel) (P<0.05 for all) with less bleeding with VCD use in these high-risk subgroups. Median time to hemostasis and time to ambulation were shorter in the VCD versus the manual compression group (P<0.01 for both). Conclusions Following transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention, VCD use is associated with a shorter time to hemostasis and time to ambulation but not less bleeding. Further study of patients with high-bleeding risk is required, including women, patients with chronic kidney disease, and those using high-potency P2Y12 inhibitors. Registration URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01848106; Unique identifier: NCT01848106.

The cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in the COMPASS trial.

AIMS: The Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial demonstrated that rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID with aspirin 100 mg was more effective than aspirin 100 mg daily alone for the prevention of cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke, or myocardial infarction in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). We aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban using patient-level data from the COMPASS trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed an in-trial analysis and extrapolated our results for 33 years using a two-state Markov model with a 1-year cycle length. Hospitalization events, procedures, and study drugs were documented for patients. We applied country-specific (Canada, France, and Germany) direct healthcare system costs (in USD) to healthcare resources consumed by patients. Average cost per patient during the trial (mean follow-up of 23 months), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and lifetime cost-effectiveness were calculated. Costs of events and procedures were reduced with rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID with aspirin. The addition of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID increased total costs for the combination group. Over a lifetime horizon (in trial +33 years), rivaroxaban plus aspirin was associated with 1.17 QALYs gained, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $3946/QALY, $9962/QALY, and $10 264/QALY in Canada, France, and Germany, respectively. PAD and polyvascular disease subgroups had lower ICERs. CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone reduces direct healthcare costs. After acquisition costs of rivaroxaban, the lifetime cost-effectiveness of 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin is highly cost-effective in Canada, France, and Germany.(COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01776424).

Patient selection for long-term secondary prevention with ticagrelor: insights from PEGASUS-TIMI 54.

AIM: In patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI) on aspirin, the addition of ticagrelor reduces ischaemic risk but increases bleeding risk. The simultaneous assessment of baseline ischaemic and bleeding risk may assist clinicians in selecting patients who are most likely to have a favourable risk/benefit profile with long-term ticagrelor. METHODS AND RESULTS: PEGASUS-TIMI 54 randomized 21 162 prior MI patients, 13 956 of which to the approved 60 mg dose or placebo and who had all necessary data. The primary efficacy endpoint was cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke, and the primary safety outcome was TIMI major bleeding; differences in Kaplan-Meier event rates at 3 years are presented. Post-hoc subgroups based on predictors of bleeding and ischaemic risk were merged into a selection algorithm. Patients were divided into four groups: those with a bleeding predictor (n = 2721, 19%) and then those without a bleeding predictor and either 0-1 ischaemic risk factor (IRF; n = 3004, 22%), 2 IRF (n = 4903, 35%), or ≥3 IRF (n = 3328, 24%). In patients at high bleeding risk, ticagrelor increased bleeding [absolute risk difference (ARD) +2.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.6, 3.9] and did not reduce the primary efficacy endpoint (ARD +0.08%, 95% CI -2.4 to 2.5). In patients at low bleeding risk, the ARDs in the primary efficacy endpoint with ticagrelor were -0.5% (-2.2, 1.3), -1.5% (-3.1, 0.02), and -2.6% (-5.0, -0.24, P = 0.03) in those with ≤1, 2, and 3 risk factors, respectively (P = 0.076 for trend across groups). There were significant trends for greater absolute risk reductions for cardiovascular death (P-trend 0.018), all-cause mortality (P-trend 0.027), and net outcomes (P-trend 0.037) with ticagrelor across these risk groups. CONCLUSION: In a post-hoc exploratory analysis of patients with prior MI, long-term ticagrelor therapy appears to be best suited for those with prior MI with multiple IRFs at low bleeding risk. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01225562 ClinicalTrials.gov.

Bleeding and Ischemic Outcomes With Ticagrelor Monotherapy According to Body Mass Index.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data regarding the safety and efficacy of different antiplatelet regimens according to standardized body mass index (BMI) categories. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate bleeding and ischemic outcomes according to BMI in the TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention) trial. METHODS: The TWILIGHT trial randomized high-risk patients to ticagrelor plus aspirin or ticagrelor plus placebo at 3 months after percutaneous coronary intervention. In this secondary analysis, patients were stratified by standard BMI categories, as recommended by the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Thrombosis (normal weight [BMI 18.5-24.99 kg/m2], overweight [BMI 25-29.99 kg/m2], and obese [BMI ≥30 kg/m2]) and by median BMI, as prespecified in the protocol. RESULTS: Among 7,038 patients randomized and with available BMI, 1,807 (25.7%) were normal weight, 2,927 (41.6%) were overweight, and 2,304 (32.7%) were obese. In normal-weight, overweight, and obese patients, ticagrelor monotherapy, compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin, reduced the primary endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding (normal weight: HR: 0.48 [95% CI: 0.32-0.73]; overweight: HR: 0.57 [95% CI: 0.41-0.78]; obese: HR: 0.63 [95% CI: 0.44-0.91]; P for interaction = 0.627), without any increase in the composite ischemic endpoint of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (normal weight: HR: 1.36 [95% CI: 0.84-2.19]; overweight: HR: 0.92 [95% CI: 0.63-1.35]; obese: HR: 0.84 [95% CI: 0.56-1.25]; P for interaction = 0.290). These findings were consistent with the prespecified analysis by median BMI. CONCLUSIONS: Among high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, ticagrelor monotherapy, compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin, reduced bleeding events without any increase in ischemic risk across different BMI categories.

Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin for Extended Thromboprophylaxis in Acutely Ill Medical Patients: Insights from the MARINER Trial.

Background The MARINER trial evaluated whether postdischarge thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban could reduce the primary outcome of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) or VTE-related death in acutely ill medical patients at risk for VTE. Although aspirin use was not randomized, approximately half of the enrolled patients were receiving aspirin at baseline. We hypothesized that thromboprophylaxis with once-daily rivaroxaban (10 mg or, if creatinine clearance was 30-49 mL/min, 7.5 mg) plus aspirin (R/A) would be superior to placebo without aspirin (no thromboprophylaxis [no TP]). Methods We compared the primary and major secondary outcomes in the intention-to-treat population in four subgroups defined at baseline: (1) R/A ( N = 3,159); (2) rivaroxaban alone ( N = 2,848); (3) aspirin alone ( N = 3,046); and (4) no TP ( N = 2,966). Major bleeding (MB) and nonmajor clinically relevant (NMCR) bleeding were assessed in the safety population on treatment plus 2 days. Results Patients on R/A had reduced symptomatic VTE and VTE-related death compared with no TP (0.76 vs 1.28%, p = 0.042), and experienced less symptomatic VTE and all-cause mortality ( p = 0.005) and all-cause mortality alone ( p = 0.01) compared with no TP. Event incidences for rivaroxaban alone (0.91%) or aspirin alone (0.92%) were similar. MB was low in all groups but lowest in the no TP group. NMCR bleeding was increased with R/A compared with no TP ( p = 0.009). Limitations Aspirin use was not randomized. Conclusion Extended postdischarge thromboprophylaxis with R/A was associated with less symptomatic VTE and VTE-related death compared with no TP in previously hospitalized medical patients at risk for VTE. NMCR bleeding was increased with R/A compared with no TP. These post hoc findings need confirmation in a prospective trial.

International Perspectives on the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Adherence to Prescribed Dual Antiplatelet Therapy: A Window Into Acute Cardiovascular Care.

An international panel of expert clinicians and researchers in acute cardiac care was convened to review, describe, and contextualize their varied experiences delivering care and maintaining ongoing research during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. A proposed perspective from which care and outcomes could be viewed was the possibility that without routine follow-up and as-accustomed interactions with their care team, patients at risk of acute atherothrombotic events might be less adherent to prescribed antiplatelet medications. This might be manifested by more emergency coronary events or by an increased (and perhaps unidentifiable) incidence of out-of-hospital cardiovascular deaths related to patient anxiety about presenting to hospital during the pandemic. The experiences of the panel members were similar in many regards, which identified opportunities for improvement in cardiac care the next time there is a substantial disruption of usual practice. Regardless of geography or payor system, there was an identified need for better remote care platforms; but stronger infrastructure and consumer facility with remote care technology, improved provider-patient communication to help ensure adherence to primary and secondary prevention medications, and longer-term prescription fills and no-hassle refills on such medications. Profound disruptions in acute cardiovascular research highlighted the need for redundancy or back-up planning for teams engaged in time-sensitive research, to ensure both continuity of protocols and patient safety.