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.

Association between psychosocial work-related factors at midlife and arterial stiffness at older age in a prospective cohort of 1736 white-collar workers.

OBJECTIVE: Arterial stiffness and exposure to psychosocial work-related factors increase the risk of developing cardiovascular disease. However, little is known about the relationship between psychosocial work-related factors and arterial stiffness. We aimed to examine this relationship. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Public organisations in Quebec City, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: The study included 1736 white-collar workers (women 52%) from 19 public organisations. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Association between psychosocial work-related factors from the job strain and effort-reward imbalance (ERI) models assessed at study baseline (1999-2001) with validated instruments and arterial stiffness assessed using carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity at follow-up, on average 16 years later (2015-2018). Generalised estimating equations were used to estimate differences in arterial stiffness between exposed and unexposed participants. Subgroup analyses according to sex, age, blood pressure (BP), cardiovascular risk score and employment status were conducted. RESULTS: Among participants with high diastolic BP (≥90 mm Hg) at baseline, aged 47 on average, those exposed to high job strain had higher arterial stiffness (1.38 m/s (95% CI: 0.57 to 2.19)) at follow-up, 16 years later, following adjustment for a large set of potential confounders. The trend was similar in participants with high systolic BP (≥140 mm Hg) exposed to high job strain (0.84 m/s (95% CI: -0.35 to 2.03)). No association was observed for ERI in the total sample and counterintuitive associations were observed in subgroup analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Job strain may have a long-term deleterious effect on arterial stiffness in people with high BP. Interventions at midlife to reduce job strain may mitigate arterial stiffness progression.

Psychosocial Stressors at Work and Coronary Heart Disease Risk in Men and Women: 18-Year Prospective Cohort Study of Combined Exposures.

BACKGROUND: Psychosocial stressors at work, like job strain and effort-reward imbalance (ERI), can increase coronary heart disease (CHD) risk. ERI indicates an imbalance between the effort and received rewards. Evidence about the adverse effect of combined exposure to these work stressors on CHD risk is scarce. This study examines the separate and combined effect of job strain and ERI exposure on CHD incidence in a prospective cohort of white-collar workers in Quebec, Canada. METHODS: Six thousand four hundred sixty-five white-collar workers without cardiovascular disease (mean age, 45.3±6.7) were followed for 18 years (from 2000 to 2018). Job strain and ERI were measured with validated questionnaires. CHD events were retrieved from medico-administrative databases using validated algorithms. Marginal Cox models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HR) stratified by sex. Multiple imputation and inverse probability weights were applied to minimize potential threats to internal validity. RESULTS: Among 3118 men, 571 had a first CHD event. Exposure to either job strain or ERI was associated with an adjusted 49% CHD risk increase (HR, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.07-2.09]). Combined exposure to job strain and ERI was associated with an adjusted 103% CHD risk increase (HR, 2.03 [95% CI, 1.38-2.97]). Exclusion of early CHD cases and censoring at retirement did not alter these associations. Among 3347 women, 265 had a first CHD event. Findings were inconclusive (passive job HR, 1.24 [95% CI, 0.80-1.91]; active job HR, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.70-1.94]; job strain HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.66-1.77]; ERI HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.72-1.45]). CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective cohort study, men exposed to job strain or ERI, separately and in combination, were at increased risk of CHD. Early interventions on these psychosocial stressors at work in men may be effective prevention strategies to reduce CHD burden. Among women, further investigation is required.

Fixed dose combination therapies in primary cardiovascular disease prevention in different groups: an individual participant meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of fixed dose combination (FDC) medications on cardiovascular outcomes in different age groups in an individual participant meta-analysis of three primary prevention randomised trials. METHODS: Participants at intermediate risk (17.7% mean 10-year Framingham Cardiovascular Risk Score), randomised to FDC of two or more antihypertensives and a statin with or without aspirin, or to their respective control, were followed up for 5 years. Age groups were <60, 60-65 and ≥65 years. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke or revascularisation. Cox proportional HRs and 95% CIs were computed within each age group. RESULTS: The primary outcome risk was reduced by 37% (3.3% in FDC vs 5.2% in control (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.74)) in the total population of 18 162 participants with larger benefits in older groups (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.78, 60 to 65 years) and (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.70, ≥65 years), as were their numbers needed to treat to avoid one primary outcome: 53 and 33, respectively. The primary outcome risk was reduced in the two oldest groups with FDC with aspirin (n=8951) by 54% and 54%, and without aspirin (n=12 061) by 34% and 38%. Dizziness, the most frequent FDC adverse effects, was higher in participants aged <65 years. Aspirin was not associated with significant bleeding excess. CONCLUSIONS: In participants with intermediate cardiovascular risk, FDCs produce larger cardiovascular benefits in older individuals, which appear greater with aspirin. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: HOPE-3, NCT00468923; TIPS-3, NCT016464137; PolyIran, NCT01271985.

A hybrid automated event adjudication system for clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: In clinical trials, event adjudication is a process to review and confirm the accuracy of outcomes reported by site investigators. Despite efforts to automate the communication between a clinical-data-and-coordination center and an event adjudication committee, the review and confirmation of outcomes, as the core function of the process, still fully rely on human labor. To address this issue, we present an automated event adjudication system and its application in two randomized controlled trials. METHODS: Centrally executed by a clinical-data-and-coordination center, the automated event adjudication system automatedly assessed and classified outcomes in a clinical data management system. By checking clinically predefined criteria, the automated event adjudication system either confirmed or unconfirmed an outcome and automatedly updated its status in the database. It also served as a management tool to assist staff to oversee the process of event adjudication. The system has been applied in: (1) the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial and (2) the New Approach riVaroxaban Inhibition of Factor Xa in a Global trial versus Aspirin to prevenT Embolism in Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source (NAVIGATE ESUS) trial. The automated event adjudication system first screened outcomes reported on a case report form and confirmed those with data matched to preset definitions. For selected primary efficacy, secondary, and safety outcomes, the unconfirmed cases were referred to a human event adjudication committee for a final decision. In the New Approach riVaroxaban Inhibition of Factor Xa in a Global trial versus Aspirin to prevenT Embolism in Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source (NAVIGATE ESUS) trial, human adjudicators were given priority to review cases, while the automated event adjudication system took the lead in the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial. RESULTS: Outcomes that were adjudicated in a hybrid model are discussed here. The COMPASS automated event adjudication system adjudicated 3283 primary efficacy outcomes and confirmed 1652 (50.3%): 132 (21.1%) strokes, 522 (53%) myocardial infarctions, and 998 (59.7%) causes of deaths. The NAVIGATE ESUS one adjudicated 737 cases of selected outcomes and confirmed 383 (52%): 219 (51.5%) strokes, 34 (42.5%) myocardial infarctions, 73 (54.9%) causes of deaths, and 57 (57.6%) major bleedings. After one deducts the time needed for migrating the system to a new study, the automated event adjudication system helped to reduce the time required for human review from approximately 1303 to 716.5 h for the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies trial and from 387 to 196 h for the New Approach riVaroxaban Inhibition of Factor Xa in a Global trial versus Aspirin to prevenT Embolism in Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source trial. CONCLUSION: The automated event adjudication system in combination with human adjudicators provides a streamlined and efficient approach to event adjudication in clinical trials. To immediately apply automated event adjudication, one can first consider the automated event adjudication system and involve human assistance for cases unconfirmed by the former.

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).

Comparison of Investigator-Reported vs Centrally Adjudicated Major Adverse Cardiac Events: A Secondary Analysis of the COMPASS Trial.

Importance: In the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial, there was a significant reduction in the adjudicated primary outcome among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease randomized to dual pathway inhibition (rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg daily) vs aspirin monotherapy, but not with rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily vs aspirin monotherapy. Whether the results are similar without adjudication is unknown. Objective: To examine the impact of dual pathway inhibition (with rivaroxaban plus aspirin) or rivaroxaban monotherapy compared with aspirin monotherapy on investigator-reported CV events and to understand the extent of concordance between investigator-reported and centrally adjudicated clinical events. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a secondary analysis of the COMPASS trial, an international, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized clinical trial with a 3-by-2 partial factorial design that evaluated participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease receiving rivaroxaban plus aspirin, rivaroxaban monotherapy, or aspirin monotherapy. End points were collected by blinded site investigators and adjudicated by a blinded clinical end point committee. Data were analyzed from March 2013 through February 2017. Interventions: Participants received dual inhibition pathway (2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily plus 100 mg aspirin once daily), rivaroxaban monotherapy (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin monotherapy (100 mg once daily). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI). Adjudicated and investigator-reported end points were compared. Results: A total of 27 395 patients (mean [SD] age, 68.2 [7.9] years; 78.0% men) were assessed, including 9152 patients randomized to dual pathway inhibition, 9117 patients randomized to rivaroxaban monotherapy, and 9126 patients randomized to aspirin monotherapy. Adjudication reduced the number of events by 10% to 15% for most end points. Among investigator-reported end points, dual pathway inhibition significantly reduced the rate of the primary efficacy outcome compared with aspirin alone (411 patients [4.5%] vs 542 patients [5.9%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.66-0.85]; P < .001), with similar reduction in adjudicated end points, (379 patients [4.1%] vs 496 patients [5.4%]; HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.66-0.86]; P < .001). Likewise, effects on ischemic end points were highly concordant (κ statistic = 0.94 [95% CI, 0.93-0.95] for the primary composite end point). Unlike with adjudicated outcomes, there was a significant reduction in the primary end point with rivaroxaban monotherapy vs aspirin monotherapy using investigator-reported events (477 patients [5.2%] vs 542 patients [5.9%]; HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.78-0.99]; P = .04) compared with adjudicated events (448 patients [4.9%] vs 496 patients [5.4%]; HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.79-1.03]; P = .12). Conclusions and Relevance: This secondary analysis of the COMPASS trial found that whether assessed by blinded site investigators or adjudicators, dual pathway inhibition significantly reduced CV events among patients with stable atherosclerotic disease compared with aspirin plus placebo. These findings suggest that using investigator-reported events in blinded clinical trials may be a more efficient alternative to adjudication. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01776424.

Dulaglutide and cardiovascular and heart failure outcomes in patients with and without heart failure: a post-hoc analysis from the REWIND randomized trial.

AIMS: People with diabetes are at high risk for cardiovascular events including heart failure (HF). We examined the effect of the glucagon-like peptide 1 agonist dulaglutide on incident HF events and other cardiovascular outcomes in those with or without prior HF in the randomized placebo-controlled Researching Cardiovascular Events with a Weekly Incretin in Diabetes (REWIND) trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: The REWIND major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) outcome was the first occurrence of a composite endpoint of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes (including unknown causes). In this post-hoc analysis, a HF event was defined as an adjudication-confirmed hospitalization or urgent evaluation for HF. Of the 9901 participants studied over a median follow-up of 5.4 years, 213/4949 (4.3%) randomly assigned to dulaglutide and 226/4952 (4.6%) participants assigned to placebo experienced a HF event (hazard ratio [HR] 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-1.12; p = 0.456). In the 853 (8.6%) participants with HF at baseline, there was no change in either MACE or HF events with dulaglutide as compared to participants without HF (p = 0.44 and 0.19 for interaction, respectively). Combined cardiovascular death and HF events were marginally reduced with dulaglutide compared to placebo (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78-1.00; p = 0.050) but unchanged in patients with and without HF at baseline (p = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: Dulaglutide was not associated with a reduction in HF events in patients with type 2 diabetes regardless of baseline HF status over 5.4 years of follow-up.

A novel kidney disease index reflecting both the albumin-to-creatinine ratio and estimated glomerular filtration rate, predicted cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and the albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) are risk factors for diabetes-related outcomes. A composite that captures information from both may provide a simpler way of assessing risk. METHODS: 9115 of 9901 Researching Cardiovascular Events with a Weekly Incretin in Diabetes (REWIND) participants with both an ACR and eGFR at baseline were included in this post hoc epidemiologic analysis. The hazard of higher baseline levels of 1/eGFR and natural log transformed ACR (calculated as ln [ACR × 100] to eliminate negative values) and their interaction for incident major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), kidney outcomes, and deaths was estimated. The hazard of the geometric mean of these two baseline measures (the kidney disease index or KDI) was also assessed. RESULTS: A non-linear relationship was observed between 1/eGFR and all three outcomes, and between ln [ACR × 100] and the kidney outcome. There was also a negative interaction between these two risk factors with respect to MACE and death. Conversely, a linear relationship was noted between the KDI and all three outcomes. People in the highest KDI fifth experienced the highest incidence of MACE, death, and the kidney outcome (4.43, 4.56, and 5.55/100 person-years respectively). C statistics for the KDI were similar to those for eGFR and albuminuria. CONCLUSIONS: The KDI combines the baseline eGFR and ACR into a novel composite risk factor that has a simple linear relationship with incident serious outcomes in people with diabetes and additional CV risk factors. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov NCT01394952.

Long-Term Treatment with the Combination of Rivaroxaban and Aspirin in Patients with Chronic Coronary or Peripheral Artery Disease: Outcomes During the Open Label Extension of the COMPASS trial.

AIMS: To describe outcomes of patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) and/or peripheral artery disease (PAD) enrolled in the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) randomized trial who were treated with the combination of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily and aspirin 100 mg once daily during long-term open-label extension (LTOLE). METHODS AND RESULTS: Of the 27 395 patients enrolled in COMPASS, 12 964 (mean age at baseline 67.2 years) from 455 sites in 32 countries were enrolled in LTOLE and treated with the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin for a median of 374 additional days (range 1-1191 days). During LTOLE, the incident events per 100 patient years were as follows: for the primary outcome [cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI)] 2.35 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.11-2.61], mortality 1.87 (1.65-2.10), stroke 0.62 (0.50-0.76), and MI 1.02 (0.86-1.19), with CIs that overlapped those seen during the randomized treatment phase with the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin. The incidence rates for major and minor bleeding were 1.01 (0.86-1.19) and 2.49 (2.24-2.75), compared with 1.67 (1.48-1.87) and 5.11 (95% CI 4.77-5.47), respectively, during the randomized treatment phase with the combination. CONCLUSION: In patients with chronic CAD and/or PAD, extended combination treatment for a median of 1 year and a maximum of 3 years was associated with incidence rates for efficacy and bleeding that were similar to or lower than those seen during the randomized treatment phase, without any new safety signals.

Fixed-dose combination therapies with and without aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: an individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In randomised controlled trials, fixed-dose combination treatments (or polypills) have been shown to reduce a composite of cardiovascular disease outcomes in primary prevention. However, whether or not aspirin should be included, effects on specific outcomes, and effects in key subgroups are unknown. METHODS: We did an individual participant data meta-analysis of large randomised controlled trials (each with ≥1000 participants and ≥2 years of follow-up) of a fixed-dose combination treatment strategy versus control in a primary cardiovascular disease prevention population. We included trials that evaluated a fixed-dose combination strategy of at least two blood pressure lowering agents plus a statin (with or without aspirin), compared with a control strategy (either placebo or usual care). The primary outcome was time to first occurrence of a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or arterial revascularisation. Additional outcomes included individual cardiovascular outcomes and death from any cause. Outcomes were also evaluated in groups stratified by the inclusion of aspirin in the fixed-dose treatment strategy, and effect sizes were estimated in prespecified subgroups based on risk factors. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to compare strategies. FINDINGS: Three large randomised trials were included in the analysis (TIPS-3, HOPE-3, and PolyIran), with a total of 18 162 participants. Mean age was 63·0 years (SD 7·1), and 9038 (49·8%) participants were female. Estimated 10-year cardiovascular disease risk for the population was 17·7% (8·7). During a median follow-up of 5 years, the primary outcome occurred in 276 (3·0%) participants in the fixed-dose combination strategy group compared with 445 (4·9%) in the control group (hazard ratio 0·62, 95% CI 0·53-0·73, p<0·0001). Reductions were also observed for the separate components of the primary outcome: myocardial infarction (0·52, 0·38-0·70), revascularisation (0·54, 0·36-0·80), stroke (0·59, 0·45-0·78), and cardiovascular death (0·65, 0·52-0·81). Significant reductions in the primary outcome and its components were observed in the analyses of fixed-dose combination strategies with and without aspirin, with greater reductions for strategies including aspirin. Treatment effects were similar at different lipid and blood pressure levels, and in the presence or absence of diabetes, smoking, or obesity. Gastrointestinal bleeding was uncommon but slightly more frequent in the fixed-dose combination strategy with aspirin group versus control (19 [0·4%] vs 11 [0·2%], p=0·15). The frequencies of haemorrhagic stroke (10 [0·2%] vs 15 [0·3%]), fatal bleeding (two [<0·1%] vs four [0·1%]), and peptic ulcer disease (32 [0·7%] vs 34 [0·8%]) were low and did not differ significantly between groups. Dizziness was more common with fixed-dose combination treatment (1060 [11·7%] vs 834 [9·2%], p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Fixed-dose combination treatment strategies substantially reduce cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularisation, and cardiovascular death in primary cardiovascular disease prevention. These benefits are consistent irrespective of cardiometabolic risk factors. FUNDING: Population Health Research Institute.

Antihypertensives and Statin Therapy for Primary Stroke Prevention: A Secondary Analysis of the HOPE-3 Trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The HOPE-3 trial (Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation­3) found that antihypertensive therapy combined with a statin reduced first stroke among people at intermediate cardiovascular risk. We report secondary analyses of stroke outcomes by stroke subtype, predictors, treatment effects in key subgroups. METHODS: Using a 2-by-2 factorial design, 12 705 participants from 21 countries with vascular risk factors but without overt cardiovascular disease were randomized to candesartan 16 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg daily or placebo and to rosuvastatin 10 mg daily or placebo. The effect of the interventions on stroke subtypes was assessed. RESULTS: Participants were 66 years old and 46% were women. Baseline blood pressure (138/82 mm Hg) was reduced by 6.0/3.0 mm Hg and LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; 3.3 mmol/L) was reduced by 0.90 mmol/L on active treatment. During 5.6 years of follow-up, 169 strokes occurred (117 ischemic, 29 hemorrhagic, 23 undetermined). Blood pressure lowering did not significantly reduce stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.59­1.08]), ischemic stroke (HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.55­1.15]), hemorrhagic stroke (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.34­1.48]), or strokes of undetermined origin (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.41­2.08]). Rosuvastatin significantly reduced strokes (HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.52­0.95]), with reductions mainly in ischemic stroke (HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.37­0.78]) but did not significantly affect hemorrhagic (HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.59­2.54]) or strokes of undetermined origin (HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 0.57­2.95]). The combination of both interventions compared with double placebo substantially and significantly reduced strokes (HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.36­0.87]) and ischemic strokes (HR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.23­0.72]). CONCLUSIONS: Among people at intermediate cardiovascular risk but without overt cardiovascular disease, rosuvastatin 10 mg daily significantly reduced first stroke. Blood pressure lowering combined with rosuvastatin reduced ischemic stroke by 59%. Both therapies are safe and generally well tolerated.

Mortality Benefit of Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin in Patients With Chronic Coronary or Peripheral Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: The combination of 2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily and 100 mg aspirin once daily compared with 100 mg aspirin once daily reduces major adverse cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this work was to report the effects of the combination on overall and cause-specific mortality. METHODS: The COMPASS trial enrolled 27,395 patients of whom 18,278 were randomized to the combination (n = 9,152) or aspirin alone (n = 9,126). Deaths were adjudicated by a committee blinded to treatment allocation. Previously identified high-risk baseline features were polyvascular disease, chronic kidney disease, mild or moderate heart failure, and diabetes. RESULTS: During a median of 23 months of follow-up (maximum 47 months), 313 patients (3.4%) allocated to the combination and 378 patients (4.1%) allocated to aspirin alone died (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71-0.96; P = 0.01). Compared with aspirin, the combination reduced CV death (160 [1.7%] vs 203 [2.2%]; HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.64-0.96; P = 0.02) but not non-CV death. There were fewer deaths following MI, stroke, and CV procedures, as well as fewer sudden cardiac, other, and unknown causes of CV deaths and coronary heart disease deaths. Patients with 0, 1, 2, and 3 or 4 high-risk features at baseline had 4.2, 4.8, 25.0, and 53.9 fewer deaths, respectively, per 1000 patients treated for 30 months. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin compared with aspirin reduced overall and CV mortality with consistent reductions in cause specific CV mortality in patients with chronic CAD or PAD. The absolute mortality benefits are greater with increasing baseline risk. (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulant Strategies [COMPASS]; NCT01776424).

Similar cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes and established or high risk for coronary vascular disease treated with dulaglutide with and without baseline metformin / Desfechos cardiovasculares semelhantes em pacientes com diabetes e risco estabelecido ou alto para doença vascular coronariana tratada com dulaglutida com e sem linha de base metformina

Objective Recent European Guidelines for Diabetes, Prediabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases introduced a shift in managing patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for or established cardiovascular (CV) disease by recommending GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors as initial glucose-lowering therapy. This is questioned since outcome trials of these drug classes had metformin as background therapy. In this post hoc analysis, the effect of dulaglutide on CV events was investigated according to the baseline metformin therapy by means of a subgroup analysis of the Researching Cardiovascular Events with a Weekly Incretin in Diabetes (REWIND) trial. Research design and methods Patients in REWIND (n = 9901; women: 46.3%; mean age: 66.2 years) had type 2 diabetes and either a previous CV event (31%) or high CV risk (69%). They were randomized (1:1) to sc. dulaglutide (1.5 mg/weekly) or placebo in addition to standard of care. The primary outcome was the first of a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and death from cardiovascular or unknown causes. Key secondary outcomes included a microvascular composite endpoint, all-cause death, and heart failure. The effect of dulaglutide in patients with and without baseline metformin was evaluated by a Cox regression hazard model with baseline metformin, dulaglutide assignment, and their interaction as independent variables. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by a Cox regression model with adjustments for factors differing at baseline between people with vs. without metformin, identified using the backward selection. Results Compared to patients with metformin at baseline (n = 8037; 81%), those without metformin (n = 1864; 19%) were older and slightly less obese and had higher proportions of women, prior CV events, heart failure, and renal disease. The primary outcome occurred in 976 (12%) participants with baseline metformin and in 281 (15%) without. There was no significant difference in the effect of dulaglutide on the primary outcome in patients with vs. without metformin at baseline [HR 0.92 (CI 0.81­1.05) vs. 0.78 (CI 0.61­0.99); interaction P = 0.18]. Findings for key secondary outcomes were similar in patients with and without baseline metformin. Conclusion This analysis suggests that the cardioprotective effect of dulaglutide is unaffected by the baseline use of metformin therapy.

Erectile function in men with type 2 diabetes treated with dulaglutide: an exploratory analysis of the REWIND placebo-controlled randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is a major risk factor for erectile dysfunction, however, the effect of GLP-1 receptor agonists on erectile dysfunction is unknown. We aimed to assess the incidence, prevalence, and progression of erectile dysfunction in men treated with dulaglutide compared with placebo, and to determine whether dulaglutide's effect on erectile dysfunction was consistent with its effect on other diabetes-related outcomes. METHODS: The Researching Cardiovascular Events with a Weekly Incretin in Diabetes (REWIND) trial was a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial of the effect of dulaglutide on cardiovascular outcomes. REWIND was done at 371 sites in 24 countries. Men and women aged older than 50 years with type 2 diabetes, who had either a previous cardiovascular event or cardiovascular risk factors, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either dulaglutide or placebo. Participating men were offered the opportunity to complete the standardised International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) questionnaire at baseline, 2 years, 5 years, and study end. We did an exploratory analysis, in which we included participants who completed a baseline and at least 1 follow-up IIEF questionnaire. The primary outcome for these analyses was the first occurrence of moderate or severe erectile dysfunction following randomisation, assessed by the erectile function subscores on IIEF. This analysis was part of the REWIND trial, which is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01394952. FINDINGS: Between Aug 18, 2011, and Aug 14, 2013, 3725 (70·1%) of 5312 male participants with a mean age of 65·5 years (SD 6·4 years) were analysed, of whom 1487 (39·9%) had a history of cardiovascular disease, and 2104 (56·5%) had moderate or severe erectile dysfunction at baseline. The incidence of erectile dysfunction following randomisation was 21·3 per 100 person-years in the dulaglutide group and 22·0 per 100 person-years in the placebo group (HR 0·92, 95% CI 0·85-0·99, p=0·021). Men in the dulaglutide group also had a lesser fall in erectile function subscore compared with the placebo group, with a least square mean difference of 0·61 (95% CI 0·18-1·05, p=0·006). INTERPRETATION: Long-term use of dulaglutide might reduce the incidence of moderate or severe erectile dysfunction in men with type 2 diabetes. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Antihypertensives and Statin Therapy for Primary Stroke Prevention: A Secondary Analysis of the HOPE-3 Trial.

Background and Purpose: The HOPE-3 trial (Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation­3) found that antihypertensive therapy combined with a statin reduced first stroke among people at intermediate cardiovascular risk. We report secondary analyses of stroke outcomes by stroke subtype, predictors, treatment effects in key subgroups. Methods: Using a 2-by-2 factorial design, 12 705 participants from 21 countries with vascular risk factors but without overt cardiovascular disease were randomized to candesartan 16 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg daily or placebo and to rosuvastatin 10 mg daily or placebo. The effect of the interventions on stroke subtypes was assessed. Results: Participants were 66 years old and 46% were women. Baseline blood pressure (138/82 mm Hg) was reduced by 6.0/3.0 mm Hg and LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; 3.3 mmol/L) was reduced by 0.90 mmol/L on active treatment. During 5.6 years of follow-up, 169 strokes occurred (117 ischemic, 29 hemorrhagic, 23 undetermined). Blood pressure lowering did not significantly reduce stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.59­1.08]), ischemic stroke (HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.55­1.15]), hemorrhagic stroke (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.34­1.48]), or strokes of undetermined origin (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.41­2.08]). Rosuvastatin significantly reduced strokes (HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.52­0.95]), with reductions mainly in ischemic stroke (HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.37­0.78]) but did not significantly affect hemorrhagic (HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.59­2.54]) or strokes of undetermined origin (HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 0.57­2.95]). The combination of both interventions compared with double placebo substantially and significantly reduced strokes (HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.36­0.87]) and ischemic strokes (HR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.23­0.72]). Conclusions: Among people at intermediate cardiovascular risk but without overt cardiovascular disease, rosuvastatin 10 mg daily significantly reduced first stroke. Blood pressure lowering combined with rosuvastatin reduced ischemic stroke by 59%. Both therapies are safe and generally well tolerated. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00468923.

Cardiovascular consequences of discontinuing low-dose rivaroxaban in people with chronic coronary or peripheral artery disease.

OBJECTIVE: In patients with chronic coronary or peripheral artery disease enrolled in the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies trial, randomised antithrombotic treatments were stopped after a median follow-up of 23 months because of benefits of the combination of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg two times per day and aspirin 100 mg once daily compared with aspirin 100 mg once daily. We assessed the effect of switching to non-study aspirin at the time of early stopping. METHODS: Incident composite of myocardial infarction, stroke or cardiovascular death was estimated per 100 person-years (py) during randomised treatment (n=18 278) and after study treatment discontinuation to non-study aspirin (n=14 068). RESULTS: During randomised treatment, the combination compared with aspirin reduced the composite (2.2 vs 2.9/100 py, HR: 0.76, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86), stroke (0.5 vs 0.8/100 py, HR: 0.58, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.76) and cardiovascular death (0.9 vs 1.2/100 py, HR: 0.78, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.96). During 1.02 years after early stopping, participants originally randomised to the combination compared with those randomised to aspirin had similar rates of the composite (2.1 vs 2.0/100 py, HR: 1.08, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.39) and cardiovascular death (1.0 vs 0.8/100 py, HR: 1.26, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.86) but higher stroke rate (0.7 vs 0.4/100 py, HR: 1.74, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.87) including a significant increase in ischaemic stroke during the first 6 months after switching to non-study aspirin. CONCLUSION: Discontinuing study rivaroxaban and aspirin to non-study aspirin was associated with the loss of cardiovascular benefits and a stroke excess. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01776424.

Efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban plus aspirin in women and men with chronic coronary or peripheral artery disease.

AIMS: The COMPASS trial demonstrated that the combination of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily and aspirin 100 mg once daily compared with aspirin 100 mg once daily reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease by 24% during a mean follow-up of 23 months. We explored whether this effect varies by sex. METHODS AND RESULTS: The effects were examined in women and men using log-rank tests and Kaplan-Meier curve. Hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from stratified Cox proportional hazards models to explore subgroup effects including subgroup of women and men according to baseline modified REACH risk score. Of 27 395 patients randomized, 18 278 were allocated to receive rivaroxaban plus aspirin (n = 9152) or aspirin alone (n = 9126), and of these, 22.1% were women. Women compared with men had similar incidence rates for MACE and major bleeding but borderline lower rates for myocardial infarction (1.7% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.05). The effect of combination therapy compared with aspirin in women and men was consistent for MACE (women: 3.8% vs. 5.2%, HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54-0.97; men: 4.2% vs. 5.5%, HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66-0.89; P interaction 0.75) and major bleeding (women: 3.1% vs. 1.4%, HR 2.22, 95% CI 1.42-3.46; men: 3.2% vs. 2.0%, HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.29-1.97; P interaction 0.19). There was no significant interaction between randomized treatment and baseline modified REACH score above or below the median for MACE or major bleeding. CONCLUSION: In patients with stable coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease, the combination of rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) and aspirin compared with aspirin alone appears to produce consistent benefits in women and men, independent of baseline cardiovascular risk.

Similar cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes and established or high risk for coronary vascular disease treated with dulaglutide with and without baseline metformin.

OBJECTIVE: Recent European Guidelines for Diabetes, Prediabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases introduced a shift in managing patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for or established cardiovascular (CV) disease by recommending GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors as initial glucose-lowering therapy. This is questioned since outcome trials of these drug classes had metformin as background therapy. In this post hoc analysis, the effect of dulaglutide on CV events was investigated according to the baseline metformin therapy by means of a subgroup analysis of the Researching Cardiovascular Events with a Weekly Incretin in Diabetes (REWIND) trial. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients in REWIND (n = 9901; women: 46.3%; mean age: 66.2 years) had type 2 diabetes and either a previous CV event (31%) or high CV risk (69%). They were randomized (1:1) to sc. dulaglutide (1.5 mg/weekly) or placebo in addition to standard of care. The primary outcome was the first of a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and death from cardiovascular or unknown causes. Key secondary outcomes included a microvascular composite endpoint, all-cause death, and heart failure. The effect of dulaglutide in patients with and without baseline metformin was evaluated by a Cox regression hazard model with baseline metformin, dulaglutide assignment, and their interaction as independent variables. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by a Cox regression model with adjustments for factors differing at baseline between people with vs. without metformin, identified using the backward selection. RESULTS: Compared to patients with metformin at baseline (n = 8037; 81%), those without metformin (n = 1864; 19%) were older and slightly less obese and had higher proportions of women, prior CV events, heart failure, and renal disease. The primary outcome occurred in 976 (12%) participants with baseline metformin and in 281 (15%) without. There was no significant difference in the effect of dulaglutide on the primary outcome in patients with vs. without metformin at baseline [HR 0.92 (CI 0.81-1.05) vs. 0.78 (CI 0.61-0.99); interaction P = 0.18]. Findings for key secondary outcomes were similar in patients with and without baseline metformin. CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests that the cardioprotective effect of dulaglutide is unaffected by the baseline use of metformin therapy.

Global variations in the prevalence, treatment, and impact of atrial fibrillation in a multi-national cohort of 153 152 middle-aged individuals.

AIMS: To compare the prevalence of electrocardiogram (ECG)-documented atrial fibrillation (or flutter) (AF) across eight regions of the world, and to examine antithrombotic use and clinical outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Baseline ECGs were collected in 153 152 middle-aged participants (ages 35-70 years) to document AF in two community-based studies, spanning 20 countries. Medication use and clinical outcome data (mean follow-up of 7.4 years) were available in one cohort. Cross-sectional analyses were performed to document the prevalence of AF and medication use, and associations between AF and clinical events were examined prospectively. Mean age of participants was 52.1 years, and 57.7% were female. Age and sex-standardized prevalence of AF varied 12-fold between regions; with the highest in North America, Europe, China, and Southeast Asia (270-360 cases per 100 000 persons); and lowest in the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia (30-60 cases per 100 000 persons) (P < 0.001). Compared with low-income countries (LICs), AF prevalence was 7-fold higher in middle-income countries (MICs) and 11-fold higher in high-income countries (HICs) (P < 0.001). Differences in AF prevalence remained significant after adjusting for traditional AF risk factors. In LICs/MICs, 24% of participants with AF and a CHADS2 score ≥1 received antithrombotic therapy, compared with 85% in HICs. AF was associated with an increased risk of stroke [hazard ratio (HR) 2.29; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49-3.52] and death (HR 2.97; 95% CI 2.25-3.93); with similar rates in different countries grouped by income level. CONCLUSIONS: Large variations in AF prevalence occur in different regions and countries grouped by income level, but this is only partially explained by traditional AF risk factors. Antithrombotic therapy is infrequently used in poorer countries despite the high risk of stroke associated with AF.