Limb Outcomes With Ticagrelor Plus Aspirin in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus and Atherosclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Ticagrelor reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and increased bleeding in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and coronary artery disease. Limb events including revascularization, acute limb ischemia (ALI), and amputation are major morbidities in patients with T2DM and atherosclerosis. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the effect of ticagrelor on limb events. METHODS: Patients were randomized to ticagrelor or placebo on top of aspirin and followed for a median of 3 years. MACE (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke), limb events (ALI, amputation, revascularization), and bleeding were adjudicated by an independent and blinded clinical events committee. The presence of peripheral artery disease (PAD) was reported at baseline. RESULTS: Of 19,220 patients randomized, 1,687 (8.8%) had PAD at baseline. In patients receiving placebo, PAD was associated with higher MACE (10.7% vs 7.3%; HR: 1.48; P < 0.001) and limb (9.5% vs 0.8%; HR: 10.67; P < 0.001) risk. Ticagrelor reduced limb events (1.6% vs 1.3%; HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.61-0.96; P = 0.022) with significant reductions for revascularization (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.62-0.99; P = 0.044) and ALI (HR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.08-0.70; P = 0.009). The benefit was consistent with or without PAD (HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.58-1.11; and HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.55-1.05, respectively; Pinteraction = 0.81). There was no effect modification of ticagrelor vs placebo based on PAD for MACE (Pinteraction = 0.40) or TIMI major bleeding (Pinteraction = 0.3239). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with T2DM and atherosclerosis are at high risk of limb events. Ticagrelor decreased this risk, but increased bleeding. Future trials evaluating the combination of ticagrelor and aspirin would further elucidate the benefit/risk of such therapy in patients with PAD, including those without coronary artery disease. (A Study Comparing Cardiovascular Effects of Ticagrelor Versus Placebo in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus [THEMIS]: NCT01991795).

Safety Of The Pcsk9 Inhibitor Alirocumab: insights From 47,296 Patient-Years Of Observation.

The ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial, comprising over 47 000 patient-years of placebo-controlled observation, demonstrated important reductions in the risk of recurrent ischaemic cardiovascular events with the monoclonal antibody to proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 alirocumab, as well as lower all-cause death. These benefits were observed in the context of substantial and persistent lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol with alirocumab compared to that achieved with placebo. The safety profile of alirocumab was indistinguishable from matching placebo except for a ∼1.7% absolute increase in local injection-site reactions. Further, the safety of alirocumab compared to placebo was evident in vulnerable groups identified before randomization, such as the elderly and those with diabetes mellitus, previous ischaemic stroke, or chronic kidney disease. The frequency of adverse events and laboratory-based abnormalities was generally similar to that in placebo-treated patients. Thus, alirocumab appears to be a safe and effective lipid-modifying treatment over a duration of at least 5 years.

Effect of CSL112 on Recurrent Myocardial Infarction and Cardiovascular Death: Insights from the AEGIS-II Trial.

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 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 (6g CSL112) or placebo. RESULTS: The incidence of the composite of cardiovascular death and type 1 MI was 11-16% lower in the CSL112 group over the study period (HR of 0.84 [95% CI 0.7-1.0; p=0.056] day 90, HR 0.86, [95% CI 0.74-0.99; p=0.048] day 180, and HR 0.89, [95% CI 0.79-1.01 p=0.07; p=0.07] 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 0.8-1.05], 0.89 [95% CI 0.79-0.996], 0.91 [0.82-1.01]. The effect of CSL112 treatment on MI was predominantly observed for type 1 MI and type 4b (MI due to stent thrombosis). CONCLUSION: While 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 to 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.).

Variation in Health Status With Invasive vs Conservative Management of Chronic Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: The ISCHEMIA trial found that patients with chronic coronary disease randomized to invasive strategy had better health status than those randomized to conservative strategy. It is unclear how best to translate these population-level results to individual patients. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to identify patient characteristics associated with health status from invasive and conservative strategies, and develop a prediction algorithm for shared decision-making. METHODS: One-year disease-specific health status was assessed in ISCHEMIA with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) Summary Score (SAQ SS) and Angina Frequency, Physical Limitations (PL), and Quality of Life (QL) domains (range 0-100, higher = less angina/better health status). RESULTS: Among 4,617 patients from 320 sites in 37 countries, mean SAQ SS was 74.1 ± 18.9 at baseline and 85.7 ± 15.6 at 1 year. Lower baseline SAQ SS and younger age were associated with better 1-year health status with invasive strategy (P interaction = 0.009 and P interaction = 0.004, respectively). For the individual domains, there were significant treatment interactions for baseline SAQ score (Angina Frequency, PL), age (PL, QL), anterior ischemia (PL), and number of baseline antianginal medications (QL), with more benefit of invasive in patients with worse baseline health status, younger age, anterior ischemia, and on more antianginal medications. Parsimonious prediction models were developed for 1-year SAQ domains with invasive or conservative strategies to support shared decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: In the management of chronic coronary disease, individual patient characteristics are associated with 1-year health status, with younger age and poorer angina-related health status showing greater benefit from invasive management. This prediction algorithm can support the translation of the ISCHEMIA trial results to individual patients. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522).

Age and Aspirin Dosing in Secondary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: In patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, increasing age is concurrently associated with higher risks of ischemic and bleeding events. The objectives are to determine the impact of aspirin dose on clinical outcomes according to age in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) trial, patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomized to daily aspirin doses of 81 mg or 325 mg. The primary effectiveness end point was death from any cause, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke. The primary safety end point was hospitalization for bleeding requiring transfusion. A total of 15 076 participants were randomized to aspirin 81 mg (n=7540) or 325 mg (n=7536) daily (median follow-up: 26.2 months; interquartile range: 19.0-34.9 months). Median age was 67.6 years (interquartile range: 60.7-73.6 years). Among participants aged <65 years (n=5841 [38.7%]), a primary end point occurred in 226 (7.54%) in the 81 mg group, and in 191 (6.80%) in the 325 mg group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.23 [95% CI, 1.01-1.49]). Among participants aged ≥65 years (n=9235 [61.3%]), a primary end point occurred in 364 (7.12%) in the 81 mg group, and in 378 (7.96%) in the 325 mg group (adjusted HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.82-1.10]). The age-dose interaction was not significant (P=0.559). There was no significant interaction between age and the randomized aspirin dose for the secondary effectiveness and the primary safety bleeding end points (P>0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Age does not modify the impact of aspirin dosing (81 mg or 325 mg daily) on clinical end points in secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

Sex Differences in Revascularization, Treatment Goals, and Outcomes of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: Insights From the ISCHEMIA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Women with chronic coronary disease are generally older than men and have more comorbidities but less atherosclerosis. We explored sex differences in revascularization, guideline-directed medical therapy, and outcomes among patients with chronic coronary disease with ischemia on stress testing, with and without invasive management. METHODS AND RESULTS: The ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial randomized patients with moderate or severe ischemia to invasive management with angiography, revascularization, and guideline-directed medical therapy, or initial conservative management with guideline-directed medical therapy alone. We evaluated the primary outcome (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest) and other end points, by sex, in 1168 (22.6%) women and 4011 (77.4%) men. Invasive group catheterization rates were similar, with less revascularization among women (73.4% of invasive-assigned women revascularized versus 81.2% of invasive-assigned men; P<0.001). Women had less coronary artery disease: multivessel in 60.0% of invasive-assigned women and 74.8% of invasive-assigned men, and no ≥50% stenosis in 12.3% versus 4.5% (P<0.001). In the conservative group, 4-year catheterization rates were 26.3% of women versus 25.6% of men (P=0.72). Guideline-directed medical therapy use was lower among women with fewer risk factor goals attained. There were no sex differences in the primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for women versus men, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.77-1.13]; P=0.47) or the major secondary outcome of cardiovascular death/myocardial infarction (adjusted HR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.76-1.14]; P=0.49), with no significant sex-by-treatment-group interactions. CONCLUSIONS: Women had less extensive coronary artery disease and, therefore, lower revascularization rates in the invasive group. Despite lower risk factor goal attainment, women with chronic coronary disease experienced similar risk-adjusted outcomes to men in the ISCHEMIA trial. REGISTRATION: URL: http://wwwclinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

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.

Comparative Effectiveness of Aspirin Dosing in Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes Mellitus: A Subgroup Analysis of the ADAPTABLE Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and concomitant atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) must be on the most effective dose of aspirin to mitigate risk of future adverse cardiovascular events. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: ADAPTABLE, an open-label, pragmatic study, randomized patients with stable, chronic ASCVD to 81 mg or 325 mg of daily aspirin. The effects of aspirin dosing was assessed on the primary effectiveness outcome, a composite of all-cause death, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke, and the primary safety outcome of hospitalization for major bleeding. In this prespecified analysis, we used Cox proportional hazards models to compare aspirin dosing in patients with and without DM for the primary effectiveness and safety outcome. RESULTS: Of 15,076 patients, 5,676 (39%) had DM of whom 2,820 (49.7%) were assigned to 81 mg aspirin and 2,856 (50.3%) to 325 mg aspirin. Patients with versus without DM had higher rates of the composite cardiovascular outcome (9.6% vs. 5.9%; P < 0.001) and bleeding events (0.78% vs. 0.50%; P < 0.001). When comparing 81 mg vs. 325 mg of aspirin, patients with DM had no difference in the primary effectiveness outcome (9.3% vs. 10.0%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.98 [95% CI 0.83-1.16]; P = 0.265) or safety outcome (0.87% vs. 0.69%; subdistribution HR 1.25 [95% CI 0.72-2.16]; P = 0.772). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the inherently higher risk of patients with DM irrespective of aspirin dosing. Our findings suggest that a higher dose of aspirin yields no added clinical benefit, even in a more vulnerable population.

Effectiveness and Safety of Enteric-Coated vs Uncoated Aspirin in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease: A Secondary Analysis of the ADAPTABLE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Clinicians recommend enteric-coated aspirin to decrease gastrointestinal bleeding in secondary prevention of coronary artery disease even though studies suggest platelet inhibition is decreased with enteric-coated vs uncoated aspirin formulations. Objective: To assess whether receipt of enteric-coated vs uncoated aspirin is associated with effectiveness or safety outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a post hoc secondary analysis of ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-term Effectiveness), a pragmatic study of 15 076 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease having data in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network. Patients were enrolled from April 19, 2016, through June 30, 2020, and randomly assigned to receive high (325 mg) vs low (81 mg) doses of daily aspirin. The present analysis assessed the effectiveness and safety of enteric-coated vs uncoated aspirin among those participants who reported aspirin formulation at baseline. Data were analyzed from November 11, 2019, to July 3, 2023. Intervention: ADAPTABLE participants were regrouped according to aspirin formulation self-reported at baseline, with a median (IQR) follow-up of 26.2 (19.8-35.4) months. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary effectiveness end point was the cumulative incidence of the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from any cause, and the primary safety end point was major bleeding events (hospitalization for a bleeding event with use of a blood product or intracranial hemorrhage). Cumulative incidence at median follow-up for primary effectiveness and primary safety end points was compared between participants taking enteric-coated or uncoated aspirin using unadjusted and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. All analyses were conducted for the intention-to-treat population. Results: Baseline aspirin formulation used in ADAPTABLE was self-reported for 10 678 participants (median [IQR] age, 68.0 [61.3-73.7] years; 7285 men [68.2%]), of whom 7366 (69.0%) took enteric-coated aspirin and 3312 (31.0%) took uncoated aspirin. No significant difference in effectiveness (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.80-1.09; P = .40) or safety (AHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.49-1.37; P = .46) outcomes between the enteric-coated aspirin and uncoated aspirin cohorts was found. Within enteric-coated aspirin and uncoated aspirin, aspirin dose had no association with effectiveness (enteric-coated aspirin AHR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.88-1.45 and uncoated aspirin AHR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.83-1.18; interaction P = .41) or safety (enteric-coated aspirin AHR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.02-5.50 and uncoated aspirin AHR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.49-1.64; interaction P = .07). Conclusions and Relevance: In this post hoc secondary analysis of the ADAPTABLE randomized clinical trial, enteric-coated aspirin was not associated with significantly higher risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death or with lower bleeding risk compared with uncoated aspirin, regardless of dose, although a reduction in bleeding with enteric-coated aspirin cannot be excluded. More research is needed to confirm whether enteric-coated aspirin formulations or newer formulations will improve outcomes in this population. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02697916.

Personalized digital behaviour interventions increase short-term physical activity: a randomized control crossover trial substudy of the MyHeart Counts Cardiovascular Health Study.

Aims: Physical activity is associated with decreased incidence of the chronic diseases associated with aging. We previously demonstrated that digital interventions delivered through a smartphone app can increase short-term physical activity. Methods and results: We offered enrolment to community-living iPhone-using adults aged ≥18 years in the USA, UK, and Hong Kong who downloaded the MyHeart Counts app. After completion of a 1-week baseline period, e-consented participants were randomized to four 7-day interventions. Interventions consisted of: (i) daily personalized e-coaching based on the individual's baseline activity patterns, (ii) daily prompts to complete 10 000 steps, (iii) hourly prompts to stand following inactivity, and (iv) daily instructions to read guidelines from the American Heart Association (AHA) website. After completion of one 7-day intervention, participants subsequently randomized to the next intervention of the crossover trial. The trial was completed in a free-living setting, where neither the participants nor investigators were blinded to the intervention. The primary outcome was change in mean daily step count from baseline for each of the four interventions, assessed in a modified intention-to-treat analysis (modified in that participants had to complete 7 days of baseline monitoring and at least 1 day of an intervention to be included in analyses). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03090321. Conclusion: Between 1 January 2017 and 1 April 2022, 4500 participants consented to enrol in the trial (a subset of the approximately 50 000 participants in the larger MyHeart Counts study), of whom 2458 completed 7 days of baseline monitoring (mean daily steps 4232 ± 73) and at least 1 day of one of the four interventions. Personalized e-coaching prompts, tailored to an individual based on their baseline activity, increased step count significantly (+402 ± 71 steps from baseline, P = 7.1⨯10-8). Hourly stand prompts (+292 steps from baseline, P = 0.00029) and a daily prompt to read AHA guidelines (+215 steps from baseline, P = 0.021) were significantly associated with increased mean daily step count, while a daily reminder to complete 10 000 steps was not (+170 steps from baseline, P = 0.11). Digital studies have a significant advantage over traditional clinical trials in that they can continuously recruit participants in a cost-effective manner, allowing for new insights provided by increased statistical power and refinement of prior signals. Here, we present a novel finding that digital interventions tailored to an individual are effective in increasing short-term physical activity in a free-living cohort. These data suggest that participants are more likely to react positively and increase their physical activity when prompts are personalized. Further studies are needed to determine the effects of digital interventions on long-term outcomes.

Aspirin Dosing for Secondary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in Patients Treated With P2Y12 Inhibitors.

Background The ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) was a large, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial that found no difference between high- versus low-dose aspirin for secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Whether concomitant P2Y12 inhibitor therapy modifies the effect of aspirin dose on clinical events remains unclear. Methods and Results Participants in ADAPTABLE were stratified according to baseline use of clopidogrel or prasugrel (P2Y12 group). The primary effectiveness end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; and the primary safety end point was major bleeding requiring blood transfusions. We used multivariable Cox regression to compare the relative effectiveness and safety of aspirin dose within P2Y12 and non-P2Y12 groups. Of 13 815 (91.6%) participants with available data, 3051 (22.1%) were receiving clopidogrel (2849 [93.4%]) or prasugrel (203 [6.7%]) at baseline. P2Y12 inhibitor use was associated with higher risk of the primary effectiveness end point (10.86% versus 6.31%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.40 [95% CI, 1.22-1.62]) but was not associated with bleeding (0.95% versus 0.53%; adjusted HR, 1.42 [95% CI, 0.91-2.22]). We found no interaction in the relative effectiveness and safety of high- versus low-dose aspirin by P2Y12 inhibitor use. Overall, dose switching or discontinuation was more common in the high-dose compared with low-dose aspirin group, but the pattern was not modified by P2Y12 inhibitor use. Conclusions In this prespecified analysis of ADAPTABLE, we found that the relative effectiveness and safety of high- versus low-dose aspirin was not modified by baseline P2Y12 inhibitor use. Registration https://www.clinical.trials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02697916.

Food Is Medicine: A Presidential Advisory From the American Heart Association.

Unhealthy diets are a major impediment to achieving a healthier population in the United States. Although there is a relatively clear sense of what constitutes a healthy diet, most of the US population does not eat healthy food at rates consistent with the recommended clinical guidelines. An abundance of barriers, including food and nutrition insecurity, how food is marketed and advertised, access to and affordability of healthy foods, and behavioral challenges such as a focus on immediate versus delayed gratification, stand in the way of healthier dietary patterns for many Americans. Food Is Medicine may be defined as the provision of healthy food resources to prevent, manage, or treat specific clinical conditions in coordination with the health care sector. Although the field has promise, relatively few studies have been conducted with designs that provide strong evidence of associations between Food Is Medicine interventions and health outcomes or health costs. Much work needs to be done to create a stronger body of evidence that convincingly demonstrates the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different types of Food Is Medicine interventions. An estimated 90% of the $4.3 trillion annual cost of health care in the United States is spent on medical care for chronic disease. For many of these diseases, diet is a major risk factor, so even modest improvements in diet could have a significant impact. This presidential advisory offers an overview of the state of the field of Food Is Medicine and a road map for a new research initiative that strategically approaches the outstanding questions in the field while prioritizing a human-centered design approach to achieve high rates of patient engagement and sustained behavior change. This will ideally happen in the context of broader efforts to use a health equity-centered approach to enhance the ways in which our food system and related policies support improvements in health.

Internet Versus Noninternet Participation in a Decentralized Clinical Trial: Lessons From the ADAPTABLE Study.

Background Internet-based participation has the potential to enhance pragmatic and decentralized trials, where representative study populations and generalizability to clinical practice are key. We aimed to study the differences between internet and noninternet/telephone participants in a large remote, pragmatic trial. Methods and Results In a subanalysis of the ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) study, we compared internet participants with those who opted for noninternet participation. Study process measures examined included participant characteristics at consent, study medication adherence, and study retention. The clinical outcome examined was a composite of all-cause mortality, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke. Noninternet participants were older (mean 69.4 versus 67.4 years), more likely to be female (38.9% versus 30.2%), more likely to be Black (27.3% versus 6.0%) or Hispanic (11.1% versus 2.0%), and had a higher number of comorbid conditions. The composite clinical outcome was more than twice as high in noninternet participants. The hazard of nonadherence to the assigned aspirin dosage was 46% higher in noninternet participants than internet participants. Conclusions Noninternet participants differed from internet participants in notable demographic characteristics while having poorer baseline health. Over the course of ADAPTABLE, they also had worse clinical outcomes and greater likelihood of study drug nonadherence. These results suggest that trials focused on internet participation select for younger, healthier participants with a higher proportion of traditionally overrepresented patients. Allowing noninternet participation enhances diversity; however, additional steps may be needed to promote study retention and study medication adherence. Registration Information clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02697916.

Comparison of the effectiveness and safety of 2 aspirin doses in secondary prevention of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease: A subgroup analysis of ADAPTABLE.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with established cardiovascular disease, the ADAPTABLE trial found no significant differences in cardiovascular events and bleeding rates between 81 mg and 325 mg of aspirin (ASA) daily. In this secondary analysis from the ADAPTABLE trial, we studied the effectiveness and safety of ASA dosing in patients with a history of chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS: ADAPTABLE participants were stratified based on the presence or absence of CKD, defined using ICD-9/10-CM codes. Within the CKD group, we compared outcomes between patients taking ASA 81 mg and 325 mg. The primary effectiveness outcome was defined as a composite of all cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke and the primary safety outcome was hospitalization for major bleeding. Adjusted Cox proportional hazard models were utilized to report differences between the groups. RESULTS: After excluding 414 (2.7%) patients due to missing medical history, a total of 14,662 patients were included from the ADAPTABLE cohort, of whom 2,648 (18%) patients had CKD. Patients with CKD were older (median age 69.4 vs 67.1 years; P < .0001) and less likely to be white (71.5% vs 81.7%; P < .0001) when compared to those without CKD. At a median follow-up of 26.2 months, CKD was associated with an increased risk of both the primary effectiveness outcome (adjusted HR 1.79 [1.57, 2.05] P < .001 and the primary safety outcome (adjusted HR 4.64 (2.98, 7.21), P < .001 and P < .05, respectively) regardless of ASA dose. There was no significant difference in effectiveness (adjusted HR 1.01 95% CI 0.82, 1.23; P = .95) or safety (adjusted HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.52, 1.64; P = .79) between ASA groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CKD were more likely than those without CKD to have adverse cardiovascular events or death and were also more likely to have major bleeding requiring hospitalization. However, there was no association between ASA dose and study outcomes among these patients with CKD.

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.

Sociodemographic determinants of oral anticoagulant prescription in patients with atrial fibrillations: findings from the PINNACLE registry using machine learning.

Background: Current risk scores that are solely based on clinical factors have shown modest predictive ability for understanding of factors associated with gaps in real-world prescription of oral anticoagulation (OAC) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Objective: In this study, we sought to identify the role of social and geographic determinants, beyond clinical factors associated with variation in OAC prescriptions using a large national registry of ambulatory patients with AF. Methods: Between January 2017 and June 2018, we identified patients with AF from the American College of Cardiology PINNACLE (Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence) Registry. We examined associations between patient and site-of-care factors and prescription of OAC across U.S. counties. Several machine learning (ML) methods were used to identify factors associated with OAC prescription. Results: Among 864,339 patients with AF, 586,560 (68%) were prescribed OAC. County OAC prescription rates ranged from 26.8% to 93%, with higher OAC use in the Western United States. Supervised ML analysis in predicting likelihood of OAC prescriptions and identified a rank order of patient features associated with OAC prescription. In the ML models, in addition to clinical factors, medication use (aspirin, antihypertensives, antiarrhythmic agents, lipid modifying agents), and age, household income, clinic size, and U.S. region were among the most important predictors of an OAC prescription. Conclusion: In a contemporary, national cohort of patients with AF underuse of OAC remains high, with notable geographic variation. Our results demonstrated the role of several important demographic and socioeconomic factors in underutilization of OAC in patients with AF.

Transiently achieved very low LDL-cholesterol levels by statin and alirocumab after acute coronary syndrome are associated with cardiovascular risk reduction: the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial.

AIMS: Long-term, placebo-controlled cholesterol-lowering trials have demonstrated legacy effects (clinical benefits that persist or emerge after trial end). It is unknown whether legacy effects follow a short period of very low low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels achieved with statin plus PCSK9 inhibitor. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 18,924 patients post-acute coronary syndrome, the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial compared the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab with placebo, each added to high-intensity or maximum-tolerated statin therapy. Patients with two consecutive LDL-C levels <0.39 mmol/L (15 mg/dL) on alirocumab had blinded placebo substitution for the remainder of the trial with continued statin treatment. In post hoc analyses, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in these patients were compared to MACE in propensity score-matched patients from the placebo group with similar baseline characteristics and study medication adherence. In the alirocumab group, 730 patients had blinded placebo substitution at a median 8.3 months from randomization, after a median 6.0 months with LDL-C < 0.39 mmol/L. They were matched to 1460 placebo patients. Both groups had lower baseline LDL-C and lipoprotein(a) and better study medication adherence than the overall cohort. Over a median follow-up of 2.8 years, MACE occurred in 47 (6.4%) alirocumab patients with limited-duration, very low achieved LDL-C versus 122 (8.4%) matched placebo patients (treatment hazard ratio 0.72; 95% confidence interval 0.51, 0.997; P = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: A short period of LDL-C levels <0.39 mmol/L achieved with statin and alirocumab, followed by statin monotherapy, was associated with lower risk of MACE than statin monotherapy throughout the observation period. Clinical benefit persisted for several years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01663402.