Outcomes of Oral Anticoagulation in Atrial Fibrillation Patients With or Without Comorbid Vascular Disease: Insights From the GARFIELD-AF Registry.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with atrial fibrillation suffer from comorbid vascular disease. The comparative efficacy and safety of different types of oral anticoagulation (OAC) in this patient group have not been widely studied. METHODS: Adults with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation were recruited into the prospective observational registry, GARFIELD-AF, and followed for 24 months. Associations of vascular disease with clinical outcomes were analyzed using adjusted hazard ratios (HR) obtained via Cox proportional-hazard modeling. Outcomes of OAC vs no OAC, and of non-vitamin K antagonist OAC (NOAC) vs vitamin K antagonist (VKA) treatment, were compared by overlap propensity-weighted Cox proportional-hazard models. RESULTS: Of 51,574 atrial fibrillation patients, 25.9% had vascular disease. Among eligible atrial fibrillation patients, those with vascular disease received OAC less frequently than those without (63% vs 73%). Over 2-year follow-up, patients with vascular disease showed a higher risk of all-cause mortality (HR 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.47) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.59; 95% CI, 1.28-1.97). OAC was associated with a significant decrease in all-cause mortality and non-hemorrhagic stroke, and increased risk of major bleeding in non-vascular disease. In vascular disease, similar but non-significant trends existed for stroke and major bleeding. A significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61-0.90) and major bleeding (HR 0.45; 95% CI, 0.29-0.70) was observed in vascular disease patients treated with NOACs, compared with VKAs. CONCLUSIONS: Atrial fibrillation patients with a history of vascular disease have worse long-term outcomes than those without. The association of NOACs vs VKA with clinical outcomes was more evident in atrial fibrillation patients with vascular disease.

Oral anticoagulation across diabetic subtypes in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation: A report from the GARFIELD-AF registry.

AIMS: This study aims to describe both management and prognosis of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF), overall as well as by antidiabetic treatment, and to assess the influence of oral anticoagulation (OAC) on outcomes by DM status. METHODS: The study population comprised 52 010 newly diagnosed patients with AF, 11 542 DM and 40 468 non-DM, enrolled in the GARFIELD-AF registry. Follow-up was truncated at 2 years after enrolment. Comparative effectiveness of OAC versus no OAC was assessed by DM status using a propensity score overlap weighting scheme and weights were applied to Cox models. RESULTS: Patients with DM [39.3% oral antidiabetic drug (OAD), 13.4% insulin ± OAD, 47.2% on no antidiabetic drug] had higher risk profile, OAC use, and rates of clinical outcomes compared with patients without DM. OAC use was associated in patients without DM and patients with DM with lower risk of all-cause mortality [hazard ratio 0.75 (0.69-0.83), 0.74 (0.64-0.86), respectively] and stroke/systemic embolism (SE) [0.69 (0.58-0.83), 0.70 (0.53-0.93), respectively]. The risk of major bleeding with OAC was similarly increased in patients without DM and those with DM [1.40 (1.14-1.71), 1.37 (0.99-1.89), respectively]. Patients with insulin-requiring DM had a higher risk of all-cause mortality and stroke/SE [1.91 (1.63-2.24)], [1.57 (1.06-2.35), respectively] compared with patients without DM, and experienced significant risk reductions of all-cause mortality and stroke/SE with OAC [0.73 (0.53-0.99); 0.50 (0.26-0.97), respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: In both patients with DM and patients without DM with AF, OAC was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality and stroke/SE. Patients with insulin-requiring DM derived significant benefit from OAC.

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.

Heterogeneity of diabetes as a risk factor for major adverse cardiovascular events in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation: an analysis of the ARISTOTLE trial.

AIMS: Whether diabetes without insulin therapy is an independent cardiovascular (CV) risk factor in atrial fibrillation (AF) has recently been questioned. We investigated the prognostic relevance of diabetes with or without insulin treatment in patients in the ARISTOTLE trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with AF and increased stroke risk randomized to apixaban vs. warfarin were classified according to diabetes status: no diabetes; diabetes on no diabetes medications; diabetes on non-insulin antidiabetic drugs only; or insulin-treated. The associations between such patient subgroups and stroke/systemic embolism (SE), myocardial infarction (MI), and CV death were examined by Cox proportional hazard regression, both unadjusted and adjusted for other prognostic variables. Patients with diabetes were younger and had a higher body mass index. Median CHA2DS2VASc score was 4.0 in patients with diabetes and 3.0 in patients without diabetes. We found no significant difference in stroke/SE incidence across patient subgroups. Compared with no diabetes, only insulin-treated diabetes was significantly associated with higher risk. When adjusted for clinical variables, compared with no diabetes, the hazard ratios (HRs) for MI (95% confidence intervals) were for diabetes on no medication: 1.15 (0.62-2.14); for diabetes on non-insulin antidiabetic drugs: 1.32 (0.90-1.94); for insulin-treated diabetes: 2.34 (1.43-3.82); interaction P = 0.008. HRs for CV death were for diabetes on no medication: 1.19 (0.86-166); for diabetes on non-insulin antidiabetic drugs: 1.12 (0.88-1.42); for insulin-treated diabetes 1.85 (1.36-2.53), interaction P = 0.001. CONCLUSION: In anticoagulated patients with AF, a higher risk of MI and CV death is largely confined to diabetes treated with insulin.

Effects of initial invasive vs. initial conservative treatment strategies on recurrent and total cardiovascular events in the ISCHEMIA trial.

AIMS: The International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial prespecified an analysis to determine whether accounting for recurrent cardiovascular events in addition to first events modified understanding of the treatment effects. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and moderate or severe ischaemia on stress testing were randomized to either initial invasive (INV) or initial conservative (CON) management. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or cardiac arrest. The Ghosh-Lin method was used to estimate mean cumulative incidence of total events with death as a competing risk. The 5179 ISCHEMIA patients experienced 670 index events (318 INV, 352 CON) and 203 recurrent events (102 INV, 101 CON). A single primary event was observed in 9.8% of INV and 10.8% of CON patients while ≥2 primary events were observed in 2.5% and 2.8%, respectively. Patients with recurrent events were older; had more frequent hypertension, diabetes, prior MI, or cerebrovascular disease; and had more multivessel CAD. The average number of primary endpoint events per 100 patients over 4 years was 18.2 in INV [95% confidence interval (CI) 15.8-20.9] and 19.7 in CON (95% CI 17.5-22.2), difference -1.5 (95% CI -5.0 to 2.0, P = 0.398). Comparable results were obtained when all-cause death was substituted for cardiovascular death and when stroke was added as an event. CONCLUSIONS: In stable CAD patients with moderate or severe myocardial ischaemia enrolled in ISCHEMIA, an initial INV treatment strategy did not prevent either net recurrent events or net total events more effectively than an initial CON strategy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01471522.

Outcomes in the ISCHEMIA Trial Based on Coronary Artery Disease and Ischemia Severity.

BACKGROUND: The ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) postulated that patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and moderate or severe ischemia would benefit from revascularization. We investigated the relationship between severity of CAD and ischemia and trial outcomes, overall and by management strategy. METHODS: In total, 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia were randomized to an initial invasive or conservative management strategy. Blinded, core laboratory-interpreted coronary computed tomographic angiography was used to assess anatomic eligibility for randomization. Extent and severity of CAD were classified with the modified Duke Prognostic Index (n=2475, 48%). Ischemia severity was interpreted by independent core laboratories (nuclear, echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging, exercise tolerance testing, n=5105, 99%). We compared 4-year event rates across subgroups defined by severity of ischemia and CAD. The primary end point for this analysis was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points were myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular death or MI, and the trial primary end point (cardiovascular death, MI, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest). RESULTS: Relative to mild/no ischemia, neither moderate ischemia nor severe ischemia was associated with increased mortality (moderate ischemia hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.61-1.30]; severe ischemia HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.57-1.21]; P=0.33). Nonfatal MI rates increased with worsening ischemia severity (HR for moderate ischemia, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.86-1.69] versus mild/no ischemia; HR for severe ischemia, 1.37 [95% CI, 0.98-1.91]; P=0.04 for trend, P=NS after adjustment for CAD). Increasing CAD severity was associated with death (HR, 2.72 [95% CI, 1.06-6.98]) and MI (HR, 3.78 [95% CI, 1.63-8.78]) for the most versus least severe CAD subgroup. Ischemia severity did not identify a subgroup with treatment benefit on mortality, MI, the trial primary end point, or cardiovascular death or MI. In the most severe CAD subgroup (n=659), the 4-year rate of cardiovascular death or MI was lower in the invasive strategy group (difference, 6.3% [95% CI, 0.2%-12.4%]), but 4-year all-cause mortality was similar. CONCLUSIONS: Ischemia severity was not associated with increased risk after adjustment for CAD severity. More severe CAD was associated with increased risk. Invasive management did not lower all-cause mortality at 4 years in any ischemia or CAD subgroup. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Outcomes of Participants With Diabetes in the ISCHEMIA Trials.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with diabetes and chronic coronary disease, it is unclear if invasive management improves outcomes when added to medical therapy. METHODS: The ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trials (ie, ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA-Chronic Kidney Disease) randomized chronic coronary disease patients to an invasive (medical therapy + angiography and revascularization if feasible) or a conservative approach (medical therapy alone with revascularization if medical therapy failed). Cohorts were combined after no trial-specific effects were observed. Diabetes was defined by history, hemoglobin A1c ≥6.5%, or use of glucose-lowering medication. The primary outcome was all-cause death or myocardial infarction (MI). Heterogeneity of effect of invasive management on death or MI was evaluated using a Bayesian approach to protect against random high or low estimates of treatment effect for patients with versus without diabetes and for diabetes subgroups of clinical (female sex and insulin use) and anatomic features (coronary artery disease severity or left ventricular function). RESULTS: Of 5900 participants with complete baseline data, the median age was 64 years (interquartile range, 57-70), 24% were female, and the median estimated glomerular filtration was 80 mL·min-1·1.73-2 (interquartile range, 64-95). Among the 2553 (43%) of participants with diabetes, the median percent hemoglobin A1c was 7% (interquartile range, 7-8), and 30% were insulin-treated. Participants with diabetes had a 49% increased hazard of death or MI (hazard ratio, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.31-1.70]; P<0.001). At median 3.1-year follow-up the adjusted event-free survival was 0.54 (95% bootstrapped CI, 0.48-0.60) and 0.66 (95% bootstrapped CI, 0.61-0.71) for patients with diabetes versus without diabetes, respectively, with a 12% (95% bootstrapped CI, 4%-20%) absolute decrease in event-free survival among participants with diabetes. Female and male patients with insulin-treated diabetes had an adjusted event-free survival of 0.52 (95% bootstrapped CI, 0.42-0.56) and 0.49 (95% bootstrapped CI, 0.42-0.56), respectively. There was no difference in death or MI between strategies for patients with diabetes versus without diabetes, or for clinical (female sex or insulin use) or anatomic features (coronary artery disease severity or left ventricular function) of patients with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher risk for death or MI, chronic coronary disease patients with diabetes did not derive incremental benefit from routine invasive management compared with initial medical therapy alone. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Outcomes in the ISCHEMIA Trial Based on Coronary Artery Disease and Ischemia Severity

BACKGROUND: The ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) postulated that patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and moderate or severe ischemia would benefit from revascularization. We investigated the relationship between severity of CAD and ischemia and trial outcomes, overall and by management strategy. METHODS: In total, 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia were randomized to an initial invasive or conservative management strategy. Blinded, core laboratory­interpreted coronary computed tomographic angiography was used to assess anatomic eligibility for randomization. Extent and severity of CAD were classified with the modified Duke Prognostic Index (n=2475, 48%). Ischemia severity was interpreted by independent core laboratories (nuclear, echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging, exercise tolerance testing, n=5105, 99%). We compared 4-year event rates across subgroups defined by severity of ischemia and CAD. The primary end point for this analysis was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points were myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular death or MI, and the trial primary end point (cardiovascular death, MI, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest). RESULTS: Relative to mild/no ischemia, neither moderate ischemia nor severe ischemia was associated with increased mortality (moderate ischemia hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.61­1.30]; severe ischemia HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.57­1.21]; P=0.33). Nonfatal MI rates increased with worsening ischemia severity (HR for moderate ischemia, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.86­1.69] versus mild/no ischemia; HR for severe ischemia, 1.37 [95% CI, 0.98­1.91]; P=0.04 for trend, P=NS after adjustment for CAD). Increasing CAD severity was associated with death (HR, 2.72 [95% CI, 1.06­6.98]) and MI (HR, 3.78 [95% CI, 1.63­8.78]) for the most versus least severe CAD subgroup. Ischemia severity did not identify a subgroup with treatment benefit on mortality, MI, the trial primary end point, or cardiovascular death or MI. In the most severe CAD subgroup (n=659), the 4-year rate of cardiovascular death or MI was lower in the invasive strategy group (difference, 6.3% [95% CI, 0.2%­12.4%]), but 4-year all-cause mortality was similar. CONCLUSIONS: Ischemia severity was not associated with increased risk after adjustment for CAD severity. More severe CAD was associated with increased risk. Invasive management did not lower all-cause mortality at 4 years in any ischemia or CAD subgroup.

Lowering cholesterol, blood pressure, or both to prevent cardiovascular events: results of 8. 7 years of follow-up of Heart Outcomes Evaluation Prevention (HOPE)-3 study participants

AIMS Rosuvastatin (10 mg per day) compared with placebo reduced major adverse cardiovascular (CV) events by 24% in 12 705 participants at intermediate CV risk after 5.6 years. There was no benefit of blood pressure (BP) lowering treatment in the overall group, but a reduction in events in the third of participants with elevated systolic BP. After cessation of all the trial medications, we examined whether the benefits observed during the active treatment phase were sustained, enhanced, or attenuated. METHODS AND RESULTS After the randomized treatment period (5.6 years), participants were invited to participate in 3.1 further years of observation (total 8.7 years). The first co-primary outcome for the entire length of follow-up was the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or CV death [major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE)-1], and the second was MACE-1 plus resuscitated cardiac arrest, heart failure, or coronary revascularization (MACE-2). In total, 9326 (78%) of 11 994 surviving Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE)-3 subjects consented to participate in extended follow-up. During 3.1 years of post-trial observation (total follow-up of 8.7 years), participants originally randomized to rosuvastatin compared with placebo had a 20% additional reduction in MACE-1 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64­0.99] and a 17% additional reduction in MACE-2 (95% CI 0.68­1.01). Therefore, over the 8.7 years of follow-up, there was a 21% reduction in MACE-1 (95% CI 0.69­0.90, P = 0.005) and 21% reduction in MACE-2 (95% CI 0.69­0.89, P = 0.002). There was no benefit of BP lowering in the overall study either during the active or post-trial observation period, however, a 24% reduction in MACE-1 was observed over 8.7 years. CONCLUSION The CV benefits of rosuvastatin, and BP lowering in those with elevated systolic BP, compared with placebo continue to accrue for at least 3 years after cessation of randomized treatment in individuals without cardiovascular disease indicating a legacy effect.

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.

Lowering cholesterol, blood pressure, or both to prevent cardiovascular events: results of 8.7 years of follow-up of Heart Outcomes Evaluation Prevention (HOPE)-3 study participants.

AIMS: Rosuvastatin (10 mg per day) compared with placebo reduced major adverse cardiovascular (CV) events by 24% in 12 705 participants at intermediate CV risk after 5.6 years. There was no benefit of blood pressure (BP) lowering treatment in the overall group, but a reduction in events in the third of participants with elevated systolic BP. After cessation of all the trial medications, we examined whether the benefits observed during the active treatment phase were sustained, enhanced, or attenuated. METHODS AND RESULTS: After the randomized treatment period (5.6 years), participants were invited to participate in 3.1 further years of observation (total 8.7 years). The first co-primary outcome for the entire length of follow-up was the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or CV death [major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE)-1], and the second was MACE-1 plus resuscitated cardiac arrest, heart failure, or coronary revascularization (MACE-2). In total, 9326 (78%) of 11 994 surviving Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE)-3 subjects consented to participate in extended follow-up. During 3.1 years of post-trial observation (total follow-up of 8.7 years), participants originally randomized to rosuvastatin compared with placebo had a 20% additional reduction in MACE-1 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64-0.99] and a 17% additional reduction in MACE-2 (95% CI 0.68-1.01). Therefore, over the 8.7 years of follow-up, there was a 21% reduction in MACE-1 (95% CI 0.69-0.90, P = 0.005) and 21% reduction in MACE-2 (95% CI 0.69-0.89, P = 0.002). There was no benefit of BP lowering in the overall study either during the active or post-trial observation period, however, a 24% reduction in MACE-1 was observed over 8.7 years. CONCLUSION: The CV benefits of rosuvastatin, and BP lowering in those with elevated systolic BP, compared with placebo continue to accrue for at least 3 years after cessation of randomized treatment in individuals without cardiovascular disease indicating a legacy effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00468923.

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.

Total cardiovascular or fatal events in people with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors treated with dulaglutide in the REWIND trail: a post hoc analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Researching cardiovascular Events with a Weekly INcretin in Diabetes (REWIND) double blind randomized trial demonstrated that weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide 1.5 mg, a glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonist, versus matched placebo reduced the first outcome of major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke (594 versus 663 events) in 9901 persons with type 2 diabetes and either chronic cardiovascular disease or risk factors, and followed during 5.4 years. These findings were based on a time-to-first-event analysis and preclude relevant information on the burden of total major events occurring during the trial. This analysis reports on the total cardiovascular or fatal events in the REWIND participants METHODS: We compared the total incidence of MACE or non-cardiovascular deaths, and the total incidence of expanded MACE (MACE, unstable angina, heart failure or revascularization) or non-cardiovascular deaths between participants randomized to dulaglutide and those randomized to placebo. Incidences were expressed as number per 1000 person-years. Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated using the conditional time gap and proportional means models. RESULTS: Participants had a mean age of 66.2 years, 46.3% were women and 31% had previous cardiovascular disease. During the trial there were 1972 MACE or non-cardiovascular deaths and 3673 expanded MACE or non-cardiovascular deaths. The incidence of total MACE or non-cardiovascular deaths in the dulaglutide and placebo groups was 35.8 and 40.3 per 1000 person-years, respectively [absolute reduction = 4.5 per 1000 person-years; conditional time gap HR 0.90 (95% CI, 0.82-0.98) p = 0.020, and proportional means HR 0.89 (95% CI, 0.80-0.98) p = 0.022]. The incidence of total expanded MACE or non-cardiovascular deaths in the dulaglutide and placebo groups was 67.1 and 74.7 per 1000 person-years, respectively [absolute reduction = 7.6 per 1000 person-years; conditional time gap HR 0.93 (95% CI, 0.87-0.99) p = 0.023, and proportional means HR 0.90 (95% CI, 0.82-0.99) p = 0.028]. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide reduced total cardiovascular or fatal event burden in people with type 2 diabetes at moderate cardiovascular risk. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.clinicaltrials.gouv . Unique Identifier NCT01394952).

Rivaroxaban for Prevention of Covert Brain Infarcts and Cognitive Decline: The COMPASS MRI Substudy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Covert brain infarcts are associated with cognitive decline. It is not known whether therapies that prevent symptomatic stroke prevent covert infarcts. COMPASS compared rivaroxaban with and without aspirin with aspirin for the prevention of stroke, myocardial infarction, and vascular death in participants with stable vascular disease and was terminated early because of benefits of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin over aspirin. We obtained serial magnetic resonance imagings and cognitive tests in a consenting subgroup of COMPASS patients to examine treatment effects on infarcts, cerebral microbleeds, and white matter hyperintensities. METHODS: Baseline and follow-up magnetic resonance imagings were completed in 1445 participants with a mean (SD) interval of 2.0 (0.7) years. Whole-brain T1, T2 fluid-attenuated inversion recovery, T2* sequences were centrally interpreted by blinded, trained readers. Participants had serial measurements of cognition and function. The primary end point was the proportion of participants with incident covert infarcts. Secondary end points were the composite of clinical stroke and covert brain infarcts, cerebral microbleeds, and white matter hyperintensities. RESULTS: At baseline, 493 (34.1%) participants had infarcts. Incident covert infarcts occurred in 55 (3.8%) participants. In the overall trial rivaroxaban plus aspirin reduced ischemic stroke by 49% (0.7% versus 1.4%; hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.51 [0.38-0.68]). In the magnetic resonance imaging substudy the effects of rivaroxaban+aspirin versus aspirin were: covert infarcts: 2.7% versus 3.5% (odds ratio [95% CI], 0.77 [0.37-1.60]); Covert infarcts or ischemic stroke: 2.9% versus 5.3% (odds ratio [95% CI], 0.53 [0.27-1.03]). Incident microbleeds occurred in 6.6% of participants and 65.7% of participants had an increase in white matter hyperintensities volume with no effect of treatment for either end point. There was no effect on cognitive tests. CONCLUSIONS: Covert infarcts were not significantly reduced by treatment with rivaroxaban and aspirin but estimates for the combination of ischemic stroke and covert infarcts were consistent with the effect on ischemic stroke in the overall trial. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01776424.

Association of Different Estimates of Renal Function With Cardiovascular Mortality and Bleeding in Atrial Fibrillation.

Background We compared different methods of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and their association with cardiovascular death and major bleeding in 14 980 patients with atrial fibrillation in the ARISTOTLE (Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation) trial. Methods and Results eGFR was calculated using equations based on creatinine (Cockcroft-Gault, Modification of Diet in Renal Disease, and Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration [CKD-EPI]) and/or cystatin C (CKD-EPICysC and CKD-EPICysC+Creatinine). These 5 eGFR equations, as well as the individual variables that are used in these equations, were assessed for correlation and discriminatory ability for cardiovascular death and major bleeding. The median age was 70.0 years, and 35.6% were women. The median eGFR was highest with Cockcroft-Gault (74.1 mL/min) and CKD-EPICysC (74.2 mL/min), and lowest with Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (66.5 mL/min). Correlation between methods ranged from 0.49 (Cockroft-Gault and CKD-EPICysC) to 0.99 (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease and CKD-EPI). Among the eGFR equations, those based on cystatin C yielded the highest C indices for cardiovascular death and major bleeding: 0.628 (CKD-EPICysC) and 0.612 (CKD-EPICysC+Creatinine), respectively. A model based on the variables within the different eGFR equations (age, sex, weight, creatinine, and cystatin C) yielded the highest discriminatory value for both outcomes, with a C index of 0.673 and 0.656, respectively. Conclusions In patients with atrial fibrillation on anticoagulation, correlation between eGFR calculated using different methods varied substantially. Cystatin C-based eGFRs seem to provide the most robust information for predicting death and bleeding. A model based on the individual variables within the eGFR equations, however, provided the highest discriminatory value. Our findings may help refine risk stratification in patients with atrial fibrillation and define how renal function should be determined in future atrial fibrillation studies. Registration URL: https://www.clini​caltr​ials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00412984.

Effect of dulaglutide on cognitive impairment in type 2 diabetes: an exploratory analysis of the REWIND trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is an independent risk factor for cognitive impairment. We aimed to investigate the association between the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist dulaglutide and cognitive impairment as an exploratory analysis within the Researching Cardiovascular Events With a Weekly Incretin in Diabetes (REWIND) trial. METHODS: REWIND is a randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled trial at 371 sites in 24 countries. We included men and women (aged ≥50 years) with either established or newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes and additional cardiovascular risk factors, glycated haemoglobin of up to 9·5% (80 mmol/mol) on a maximum of two oral glucose-lowering drugs with or without basal insulin, and a body-mass index of at least 23 kg/m2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) subcutaneous injections once a week of either dulaglutide (1·5 mg) or an equal volume of matching placebo. Randomisation was done using a computer-generated code with stratification by site. Participants and all study personnel were masked to treatment allocation until the database was locked. Participants were followed up at least every 6 months for the composite primary outcome of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from cardiovascular or unknown causes. Cognitive function was assessed at baseline and during follow-up using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST). We present here the exploratory primary cognitive outcome, which was the first occurrence of a follow-up score on MoCA or DSST that was 1·5 SDs or more below the baseline mean score in the participant's country. All analyses were done using an intention-to-treat approach. The REWIND trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01394952. FINDINGS: Between Aug 18, 2011, and Aug 14, 2013, 9901 participants were randomly assigned to either dulaglutide (n=4949) or placebo (n=4952). During median follow-up of 5·4 (IQR 5·1-5·9) years, 8828 participants provided a baseline and one or more follow-up MoCA or DSST scores, of whom 4456 were assigned dulaglutide and 4372 were assigned placebo. The cognitive outcome occurred in 4·05 per 100 patient-years in participants assigned dulaglutide and 4·35 per 100 patient-years in people assigned placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·93, 95% CI 0·85-1·02; p=0·11). After post-hoc adjustment for individual standardised baseline scores, the hazard of substantive cognitive impairment was reduced by 14% in those assigned dulaglutide (HR 0·86, 95% CI 0·79-0·95; p=0·0018). INTERPRETATION: Long-term treatment with dulaglutide might reduce cognitive impairment in people with type 2 diabetes. Further studies of this drug focused on brain health and cognitive function are clearly indicated. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Initial Invasive or Conservative Strategy for Stable Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, -1.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522.).

The effect of dulaglutide on stroke: an exploratory analysis of the REWIND trial.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular outcome trials have suggested that glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists might reduce strokes. We analysed the effect of dulaglutide on stroke within the researching cardiovascular events with a weekly incretin in diabetes (REWIND) trial. METHODS: REWIND was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done at 371 sites in 24 countries. Men and women (aged ≥50 years) with established or newly detected type 2 diabetes whose HbA1c was 9·5% or less (with no lower limit) on stable doses of up to two oral glucose-lowering drugs with or without basal insulin therapy were eligible if their body-mass index was at least 23 kg/m2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to weekly subcutaneous injections of either masked dulaglutide 1·5 mg or the same volume of masked placebo (containing the same excipients but without dulaglutide). Randomisation was done by a computer-generated random code with an interactive web response system with stratification by site. Participants, investigators, the trial leadership, and all other personnel were masked to treatment allocation until the trial was completed and the database was locked. During the treatment period, participants in both groups were instructed to inject study drug on the same day at around the same time, each week. Strokes were categorised as fatal or non-fatal, and as either ischaemic, haemorrhagic, or undetermined. Stroke severity was assessed using the modified Rankin scale. Participants were seen at 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and then every 3 months for drug dispensing and every 6 months for detailed assessments, until 1200 confirmed primary outcomes accrued. The primary endpoint was the first occurrence of any component of the composite outcome, which comprised non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular or unknown causes. All analyses were done according to an intention-to-treat strategy that included all randomly assigned participants, irrespective of adherence. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01394952. FINDINGS: Between Aug 18, 2011, and Aug 14, 2013, we screened 12 133 patients, of whom 9901 with type 2 diabetes and additional cardiovascular risk factors were randomly assigned to either dulaglutide (n=4949) or an equal volume of placebo (n=4952). During a median follow-up of 5·4 years, cerebrovascular and other cardiovascular outcomes were ascertained and adjudicated. 158 (3·2%) of 4949 participants assigned to dulaglutide and 205 (4·1%) of 4952 participants assigned to placebo had a stroke during follow-up (hazard ratio [HR] 0·76, 95% CI 0·62-0·94; p=0·010). Dulaglutide reduced ischaemic stroke (0·75, 0·59-0·94, p=0·012) but had no effect on haemorrhagic stroke (1·05, 0·55-1·99; p=0·89). Dulaglutide also reduced the composite of non-fatal stroke or all-cause death (0·88, 0·79-0·98; p=0·017) and disabling stroke (0·74, 0·56-0·99; p=0·042). The degree of disability after stroke did not differ by treatment group. INTERPRETATION: Long-term dulaglutide use might reduce clinically relevant ischaemic stroke in people with type 2 diabetes but does not affect stroke severity. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Timing of Staged Nonculprit Artery Revascularization in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: COMPLETE Trial.

BACKGROUND: The COMPLETE (Complete vs Culprit-only Revascularization to Treat Multi-vessel Disease After Early PCI for STEMI) trial demonstrated that staged nonculprit lesion percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduced major cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of nonculprit-lesion PCI timing on major CV outcomes and also the time course of the benefit of complete revascularization. METHODS: Following culprit-lesion PCI, 4,041 patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD were randomized to staged nonculprit-lesion PCI or culprit-lesion only PCI. Randomization was stratified according to investigator-planned timing of nonculprit-lesion PCI: during or after the index hospitalization. The first coprimary outcome was the composite of CV death or myocardial infarction (MI). In pre-specified analyses, hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for each time stratum. Landmark analyses of the entire population were performed within 45 days and after 45 days. RESULTS: For nonculprit-lesion PCI planned during the index hospitalization (actual time: median 1 day), CV death or MI was reduced with complete revascularization compared with culprit-lesion only PCI (HR: 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59 to 1.00). For nonculprit lesion PCI planned to occur after hospital discharge (actual time: median 23 days), CV death or MI was also reduced with complete revascularization (HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.97; interaction p = 0.62). Landmark analyses demonstrated an HR of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.59 to 1.24) during the first 45 days and 0.69 (95% CI: 0.54 to 0.89) from 45 days to the end of follow-up for intended nonculprit lesion PCI versus culprit lesion only PCI. CONCLUSIONS: Among STEMI patients with multivessel disease, the benefit of complete revascularization over culprit-lesion only PCI was consistent irrespective of the investigator-determined timing of nonculprit-lesion intervention. The benefit of complete revascularization on hard clinical outcomes emerged mainly over the long term.