Clopidogrel in noncarriers of CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles versus ticagrelor in elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome: A pre-specified sub analysis from the POPular Genetics and POPular Age trials CYP2C19 alleles in elderly patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who are carrying CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles derive less benefit from clopidogrel treatment. Despite this, in elderly patients, clopidogrel might be preferred over more potent P2Y12 inhibitors due to a lower bleeding risk. Whether CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet treatment in the elderly could be of benefit has not been studied specifically. METHODS: Patients aged 70 years and older with known CYP2C19*2 and *3 genotype were identified from the POPular Genetics and POPular Age trials. Noncarriers of loss-of-function alleles treated with clopidogrel were compared to patients, irrespective of CYP2C19 genotype, treated with ticagrelor and to clopidogrel treated carriers of loss-of-function alleles. We assessed net clinical benefit (all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke and Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) major bleeding), atherothrombotic outcomes (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke) and bleeding outcomes (PLATO major and minor bleeding). RESULTS: A total of 991 patients were assessed. There was no significant difference in net clinical benefit (17.2% vs. 15.1%, adjusted hazard ratio (adjHR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77-1.44), atherothrombotic outcomes (9.7% vs. 9.2%, adjHR 1.00, 95%CI 0.66-1.50), and bleeding outcomes (17.7% vs. 19.8%, adjHR 0.80, 95%CI 0.62-1.12) between clopidogrel in noncarriers of loss-of-function alleles and ticagrelor respectively. CONCLUSION: In ACS patients aged 70 years and older, there was no significant difference in net clinical benefit and atherothrombotic outcomes between noncarriers of a loss-of-function allele treated with clopidogrel and patients treated with ticagrelor. The bleeding rate was numerically; though not statistically significant, lower in patients using clopidogrel.

Design and rationale of DUTCH-AF: a prospective nationwide registry programme and observational study on long-term oral antithrombotic treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation.

INTRODUCTION: Anticoagulation therapy is pivotal in the management of stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF). Prospective registries, containing longitudinal data are lacking with detailed information on anticoagulant therapy, treatment adherence and AF-related adverse events in practice-based patient cohorts, in particular for non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOAC). With the creation of DUTCH-AF, a nationwide longitudinal AF registry, we aim to provide clinical data and answer questions on the (anticoagulant) management over time and of the clinical course of patients with newly diagnosed AF in routine clinical care. Within DUTCH-AF, our current aim is to assess the effect of non-adherence and non-persistence of anticoagulation therapy on clinical adverse events (eg, bleeding and stroke), to determine predictors for such inadequate anticoagulant treatment, and to validate and refine bleeding prediction models. With DUTCH-AF, we provide the basis for a continuing nationwide AF registry, which will facilitate subsequent research, including future registry-based clinical trials. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The DUTCH-AF registry is a nationwide, prospective registry of patients with newly diagnosed 'non-valvular' AF. Patients will be enrolled from primary, secondary and tertiary care practices across the Netherlands. A target of 6000 patients for this initial cohort will be followed for at least 2 years. Data on thromboembolic and bleeding events, changes in antithrombotic therapy and hospital admissions will be registered. Pharmacy-dispensing data will be obtained to calculate parameters of adherence and persistence to anticoagulant treatment, which will be linked to AF-related outcomes such as ischaemic stroke and major bleeding. In a subset of patients, anticoagulation adherence and beliefs about drugs will be assessed by questionnaire. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study protocol was approved as exempt for formal review according to Dutch law by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands. Results will be disseminated by publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at scientific congresses. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Trial NL7467, NTR7706 (https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7464).

Effect of Using the HEART Score in Patients With Chest Pain in the Emergency Department: A Stepped-Wedge, Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The HEART (History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors, and initial Troponin) score is an easy-to-apply instrument to stratify patients with chest pain according to their short-term risk for major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), but its effect on daily practice is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To measure the effect of use of the HEART score on patient outcomes and use of health care resources. DESIGN: Stepped-wedge, cluster randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01756846). SETTING: Emergency departments in 9 Dutch hospitals. PATIENTS: Unselected patients with chest pain presenting at emergency departments in 2013 and 2014. INTERVENTION: All hospitals started with usual care. Every 6 weeks, 1 hospital was randomly assigned to switch to "HEART care," during which physicians calculated the HEART score to guide patient management. MEASUREMENTS: For safety, a noninferiority margin of a 3.0% absolute increase in MACEs within 6 weeks was set. Other outcomes included use of health care resources, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 3648 patients were included (1827 receiving usual care and 1821 receiving HEART care). Six-week incidence of MACEs during HEART care was 1.3% lower than during usual care (upper limit of the 1-sided 95% CI, 2.1% [within the noninferiority margin of 3.0%]). In low-risk patients, incidence of MACEs was 2.0% (95% CI, 1.2% to 3.3%). No statistically significant differences in early discharge, readmissions, recurrent emergency department visits, outpatient visits, or visits to general practitioners were observed. LIMITATION: Physicians were hesitant to refrain from admission and diagnostic tests in patients classified as low risk by the HEART score. CONCLUSION: Using the HEART score during initial assessment of patients with chest pain is safe, but the effect on health care resources is limited, possibly due to nonadherence to management recommendations. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development.

Updated evidence on early statin therapy for acute coronary syndromes: meta-analysis of 18 randomized trials involving over 14,000 patients.

BACKGROUND: The short-term effects of early statin therapy in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) on clinical outcomes remain unclear. Our objective was to update the evidence on patient relevant outcomes from all randomized trials comparing early statin therapy with placebo or usual care at 1 and 4 months following ACS. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials that compared statins to control, initiated within 14 days after onset of ACS and with minimal follow-up of 30 days. Data were extracted in duplicate and analyzed by a random effects model. Investigators from individual trials contributed additional data where needed. RESULTS: A total of 18 trials involving 14,303 patients with ACS were included in the meta-analysis. We found no evidence for further trials on the topic. Risk ratios for the combined endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke of early statin therapy compared to control were 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.08; P=0.34) at 1 month and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.81-1.06; P=0.27) at 4 months following ACS. There were favorable trends related to statin use for all individual secondary endpoints but there was no statistically significant risk reduction except for unstable angina with a risk ratio of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.59-0.96; P=0.02) at 4 months following ACS. CONCLUSIONS: Initiation of statin therapy within 14 days following ACS results in directionally favorable but non-significant reduction in death, myocardial infarction, or stroke up to 4 months, and significant reduction in the occurrence of unstable angina at 4 months following ACS.

Effects of early treatment with statins on short-term clinical outcomes in acute coronary syndromes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

CONTEXT: The short-term effects of early treatment with statins in patients after the onset of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) for the outcomes of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate relevant outcomes of patients from randomized controlled trials comparing early statin therapy with placebo or usual care at 1 and 4 months following ACS. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Systematic search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PASCAL, Cochrane Central Register) from their inception to August 2005, which was supplemented by contact with experts in the field. Two reviewers independently determined the eligibility of randomized controlled trials that compared treatment with statins with a control, were initiated within 14 days after onset of ACS, and had a minimal follow-up of 30 days. Trials with cerivastatin were only included in a sensitivity analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: Information on baseline characteristics of included trials and patients, reported methodological quality, lipid levels, and clinical outcome was independently extracted by 2 investigators. Investigators from each included trial contributed additional data if necessary. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twelve trials involving 13 024 patients with ACS were included in the meta-analysis. The risk ratios for the combined end point of death, MI, and stroke for patients treated with early statin therapy compared with control therapy were 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.09; P = .39) at 1 month and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.81-1.07; P = .30) at 4 months following ACS. There were no statistically significant risk reductions from statins for total death, total MI, total stroke, cardiovascular death, fatal or nonfatal MI, or revascularization procedures (percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft surgery). Sensitivity analyses with restriction to trials of high quality or with additional data from a large trial using cerivastatin indicated summary risk ratios even closer to 1. CONCLUSION: Based on available evidence, initiation of statin therapy within 14 days following onset of ACS does not reduce death, MI, or stroke up to 4 months.