External Control Arms in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Using Clinical Trial and Real-World Data Sources.

Rationale: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive lung disease for which novel therapies are needed. External controls (ECs) could enhance IPF trial efficiency, but the direct comparability of ECs versus concurrent controls is unknown. Objectives: To develop IPF ECs by fit-for-purpose data standards to historical randomized clinical trial (RCT), multicenter registry (Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation Patient Registry), and electronic health record (EHR) data and to evaluate endpoint comparability among ECs and the phase II RCT of BMS-986020. Methods: After data curation, the rate of change in FVC from baseline to 26 weeks among participants receiving BMS-986020 600 mg twice daily was compared with the BMS-placebo arm and ECs using mixed-effects models with inverse probability weights. Measurements and Main Results: At 26 weeks, the rates of change in FVC were -32.71 ml for BMS-986020 and -130.09 ml for BMS-placebo (difference, 97.4 ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], 24.6-170.2), replicating the original BMS-986020 RCT. RCT ECs showed treatment effect point estimates within the 95% CI of the original BMS-986020 RCT. Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation Patient Registry ECs and EHR ECs experienced a slower rate of FVC decline compared with the BMS-placebo arm, resulting in treatment-effect point estimates outside of the 95% CI of the original BMS-986020 RCT. Conclusions: IPF ECs generated from historical RCT placebo arms result in comparable primary treatment effects to that of the original clinical trial, whereas ECs from real-world data sources, including registry or EHR data, do not. RCT ECs may serve as a potentially useful supplement to future IPF RCTs.

Health status and clinical outcomes in older adults with chronic coronary disease: the ISCHEMIA trial

BACKGROUND: Whether initial invasive management in older vs younger adults with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia improves health status or clinical outcomes is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to examine the impact of age on health status and clinical outcomes with invasive vs conservative management in the ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial. METHODS: One-year angina-specific health status was assessed with the 7-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) (score range 0-100; higher scores indicate better health status). Cox proportional hazards models estimated the treatment effect of invasive vs conservative management as a function of age on the composite clinical outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for resuscitated cardiac arrest, unstable angina, or heart failure. RESULTS: Among 4,617 participants, 2,239 (48.5%) were aged <65 years, 1,713 (37.1%) were aged 65 to 74 years, and 665 (14.4%) were aged ≥75 years. Baseline SAQ summary scores were lower in participants aged <65 years. Fully adjusted differences in 1-year SAQ summary scores (invasive minus conservative) were 4.90 (95% CI: 3.56-6.24) at age 55 years, 3.48 (95% CI: 2.40-4.57) at age 65 years, and 2.13 (95% CI: 0.75-3.51) at age 75 years (Pinteraction = 0.008). Improvement in SAQ Angina Frequency was less dependent on age (Pinteraction = 0.08). There were no age differences between invasive vs conservative management on the composite clinical outcome (Pinteraction = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: Older patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia had consistent improvement in angina frequency but less improvement in angina-related health status with invasive management compared with younger patients. Invasive management was not associated with improved clinical outcomes in older or younger patients. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522).

Health Status and Clinical Outcomes in Older Adults With Chronic Coronary Disease: The ISCHEMIA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Whether initial invasive management in older vs younger adults with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia improves health status or clinical outcomes is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to examine the impact of age on health status and clinical outcomes with invasive vs conservative management in the ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial. METHODS: One-year angina-specific health status was assessed with the 7-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) (score range 0-100; higher scores indicate better health status). Cox proportional hazards models estimated the treatment effect of invasive vs conservative management as a function of age on the composite clinical outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for resuscitated cardiac arrest, unstable angina, or heart failure. RESULTS: Among 4,617 participants, 2,239 (48.5%) were aged <65 years, 1,713 (37.1%) were aged 65 to 74 years, and 665 (14.4%) were aged ≥75 years. Baseline SAQ summary scores were lower in participants aged <65 years. Fully adjusted differences in 1-year SAQ summary scores (invasive minus conservative) were 4.90 (95% CI: 3.56-6.24) at age 55 years, 3.48 (95% CI: 2.40-4.57) at age 65 years, and 2.13 (95% CI: 0.75-3.51) at age 75 years (Pinteraction = 0.008). Improvement in SAQ Angina Frequency was less dependent on age (Pinteraction = 0.08). There were no age differences between invasive vs conservative management on the composite clinical outcome (Pinteraction = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: Older patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia had consistent improvement in angina frequency but less improvement in angina-related health status with invasive management compared with younger patients. Invasive management was not associated with improved clinical outcomes in older or younger patients. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522).

Time-dependent event accumulation in a cardiovascular outcome trial of patients with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Estimating cardiovascular (CV) event accrual is important for outcome trial planning. Limited data exist describing event accrual patterns in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). We compared apparent CV event accrual patterns with true event rates in the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS). METHODS: Centrally adjudicated event dates and accrual rates for a 4-point major adverse CV event composite (MACE-4; includes CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or unstable angina hospitalization), MACE-4 components, all-cause mortality (ACM), and heart failure hospitalization were compiled. We used three graphical methods (Weibull probability plot, plot of negative log of the Kaplan-Meier survival distribution estimate, and the Epanechnikov kernel-smoothed estimate of the hazard rate) to examine hazard rate morphology over time for the 7 outcomes. RESULTS: Plots for all outcomes showed real-time constant event hazard rates for the duration of the follow-up, confirmed by Weibull shape parameters. The Weibull shape parameters for ACM (1.14, 95% CI 1.08-1.21) and CV death (1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.16) were not sufficiently > 1 as to require non-constant hazard rate models to accurately depict the data. The time lag between event occurrence and event adjudication being completed, the adjudication gap, improved over the course of the trial. CONCLUSIONS: In TECOS, the nonfatal event hazard rates were constant over time. Small increases over time in the hazard rate for fatal events would not require complex modelling to predict event accrual, providing confidence in traditional modelling methods for predicting CV outcome trial event rates in this population. The adjudication gap provides a useful metric to monitor within-trial event accrual patterns. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00790205.

Development and validation of a model to predict cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Among individuals with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is common and confers increased risk for morbidity and mortality. Differentiating risk is key to optimize efficiency of treatment selection. Our objective was to develop and validate a model to predict risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) comprising the first event of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke for individuals with both T2DM and ASCVD. METHODS: Using data from the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS), we used Cox proportional hazards models to predict MACE among participants with T2DM and ASCVD. All baseline covariates collected in the trial were considered for inclusion, although some were excluded immediately because of large missingness or collinearity. A full model was developed using stepwise selection in each of 25 imputed datasets, and comprised candidate variables selected in 20 of the 25 datasets. A parsimonious model with a maximum of 10 degrees of freedom was created using Cox models with least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), where the adjusted R-square was used as criterion for selection. The model was then externally validated among a cohort of participants with similar criteria in the ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) trial. Discrimination of both models was assessed using Harrell's C-index and model calibration by the Greenwood-Nam-D'Agostino statistic based on 4-year event rates. RESULTS: Overall, 1491 (10.2%) of 14,671 participants in TECOS and 130 (9.3%) in the ACCORD validation cohort (n = 1404) had MACE over 3 years' median follow-up. The final model included 9 characteristics (prior stroke, age, chronic kidney disease, prior MI, sex, heart failure, insulin use, atrial fibrillation, and microvascular complications). The model had moderate discrimination in both the internal and external validation samples (C-index = 0.65 and 0.61, respectively). The model was well calibrated across the risk spectrum-from a cumulative MACE rate of 6% at 4 years in the lowest risk quintile to 26% in the highest risk quintile. CONCLUSION: Among patients with T2DM and prevalent ASCVD, this 9-factor risk model can quantify the risk of future ASCVD complications and inform decision making for treatments and intensity.

Clinical and Quality-of-Life Outcomes Following Invasive vs Conservative Treatment of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease Across the Spectrum of Kidney Function.

Importance: Prior trials of invasive vs conservative management of chronic coronary disease (CCD) have not enrolled patients with severe chronic kidney disease (CKD). As such, outcomes across kidney function are not well characterized. Objectives: To evaluate clinical and quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes across the spectrum of CKD following conservative and invasive treatment strategies. Design, Setting, and Participants: Participants from the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) and ISCHEMIA-Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) trials were categorized by CKD stage: stage 1 (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] 90 mL/min/1.73m2 or greater), stage 2 (eGFR 60-89 mL/min/1.73m2), stage 3 (eGFR 30-59 mL/min/1.73m2), stage 4 (eGFR 15-29 mL/min/1.73m2), or stage 5 (eGFR less than 15 mL/min/1.73m2 or receiving dialysis). Enrollment took place from July 26, 2012, through January 31, 2018, with a median follow-up of 3.1 years. Data were analyzed from January 2020 to May 2021. Interventions: Initial invasive management of coronary angiography and revascularization with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) vs initial conservative management of GDMT alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary clinical outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI). The primary QoL outcome was the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) summary score. Results: Among the 5956 participants included in this analysis (mean [SD] age, 64 [10] years; 1410 [24%] female and 4546 [76%] male), 1889 (32%), 2551 (43%), 738 (12%), 311 (5%), and 467 (8%) were in CKD stages 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. By self-report, 18 participants (<1%) were American Indian or Alaska Native; 1676 (29%), Asian; 267 (5%), Black; 861 (16%), Hispanic or Latino; 18 (<1%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; 3884 (66%), White; and 13 (<1%), multiple races or ethnicities. There was a monotonic increase in risk of the primary composite end point (3-year rates, 9.52%, 10.72%, 18.42%, 34.21%, and 38.01% respectively), death, cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke in individuals with higher CKD stages. Invasive management was associated with an increase in stroke (3-year event rate difference, 1%; 95% CI, 0.3 to 1.7) and procedural MI (1.6%; 95% CI, 0.9 to 2.3) and a decrease in spontaneous MI (-2.5%; 95% CI, -3.9 to -1.1) with no difference in other outcomes; the effect was similar across CKD stages. There was heterogeneity of treatment effect for QoL outcomes such that invasive management was associated with an improvement in angina-related QoL in individuals with CKD stages 1 to 3 and not in those with CKD stages 4 to 5. Conclusions and Relevance: Among participants with CCD, event rates were inversely proportional to kidney function. Invasive management was associated with an increase in stroke and procedural MI and a reduced risk in spontaneous MI, and the effect was similar across CKD stages with no difference in other outcomes, including death. The benefit for QoL with invasive management was not observed in individuals with poorer kidney function.

Outcomes With Intermediate Left Main Disease: Analysis From the ISCHEMIA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with significant (≥50%) left main disease (LMD) have a high risk of cardiovascular events, and guidelines recommend revascularization to improve survival. However, the impact of intermediate LMD (stenosis, 25%-49%) on outcomes is unclear. METHODS: Randomized ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) participants who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography at baseline were categorized into those with (25%-49%) and without (<25%) intermediate LMD. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. The primary quality of life outcome was the Seattle Angina Questionnaire summary score. RESULTS: Among the 3699 participants who satisfied the inclusion criteria, 962 (26%) had intermediate LMD. Among invasive strategy participants with intermediate LMD on coronary computed tomography angiography, 49 (7.0%) had significant (≥50% stenosis) left main stenosis on invasive angiography. Patients with intermediate LMD had a higher risk of cardiovascular events in the unadjusted but not in the fully adjusted model compared with those without intermediate LMD. An invasive strategy increased procedural MI and decreased nonprocedural MI with no significant difference for other outcomes including the primary end point. There was no meaningful heterogeneity of treatment effect based on intermediate LMD status except for nonprocedural MI for which there was a greater absolute reduction with invasive management in the intermediate LMD group (-6.4% versus -2.0%; Pinteraction=0.049). The invasive strategy improved angina-related quality of life and the benefit was durable throughout follow-up without significant heterogeneity based on intermediate LMD status. CONCLUSIONS: In the ISCHEMIA trial, there was no meaningful heterogeneity of treatment benefit from an invasive strategy regardless of intermediate LMD status except for a greater absolute risk reduction in nonprocedural MI with invasive management in those with intermediate LMD. An invasive strategy increased procedural MI, reduced nonprocedural MI, and improved angina-related quality of life. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

CT Angiography Followed by Invasive Angiography in Patients With Moderate or Severe Ischemia-Insights From the ISCHEMIA Trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine the concordance of coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) assessment of coronary anatomy and invasive coronary angiography (ICA) as the reference standard in patients enrolled in the ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches). BACKGROUND: Performance of CCTA compared with ICA has not been assessed in patients with very high burdens of stress-induced ischemia and a high likelihood of anatomically significant coronary artery disease (CAD). A blinded CCTA was performed after enrollment to exclude patients with left main (LM) disease or no obstructive CAD before randomization to an initial conservative or invasive strategy, the latter guided by ICA and optimal revascularization. METHODS: Rates of concordance were calculated on a per-patient basis in patients randomized to the invasive strategy. Anatomic significance was defined as ≥50% diameter stenosis (DS) for both modalities. Sensitivity analyses using a threshold of ≥70% DS for CCTA or considering only CCTA images of good-to-excellent quality were performed. RESULTS: In 1,728 patients identified by CCTA as having no LM disease ≥50% and at least single-vessel CAD, ICA confirmed 97.1% without LM disease ≥50%, 92.2% with at least single-vessel CAD and no LM disease ≥50%, and only 4.9% without anatomically significant CAD. Results using a ≥70% DS threshold or only CCTA of good-to-excellent quality showed similar overall performance. CONCLUSIONS: CCTA before randomization in ISCHEMIA demonstrated high concordance with subsequent ICA for identification of patients with angiographically significant disease without LM disease.

Initial invasive versus conservative management of stable ischemic heart disease patients with a history of heart failure or left ventricular dysfunction: Insights from the ISCHEMIA trial

Background: It is unknown whether an initial invasive strategy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and at least moderate ischemia improves outcomes in patients with a history of heart failure (HF) or left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) when EF >35%, but <45%. Methods: Among 5179 participants randomized into the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA), all of whom had LVEF >35%, we compared cardiovascular outcomes by treatment strategy in those with a history of HF or LV dysfunction (HF/LVD) at baseline versus those without HF/LVD. Median follow up was 3.2 years. Results: There were 398 (7.7%) participants with HF/LVD at baseline of whom 177 had HF/LVEF>45%, 28 had HF/LVEF 35-45% and 193 had LVEF 35-45% but no prior history of HF. HF/LVD was associated with more comorbidities at baseline, particularly prior myocardial infarction (MI), stroke and hypertension. Compared to those without HF/LVD, those with HF/LVD were more likely to experience a primary outcome composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or hospitalization for unstable angina, HF, or resuscitated cardiac arrest; four-year cumulative incidence rate (22.7% vs. 13.8%), cardiovascular death or MI (19.7% vs. 12.3%), and all-cause death or HF (15.0% vs. 6.9%). Those with HF/LVD randomized to the invasive versus conservative strategy had a lower rate of the primary outcome (17.2% vs. 29.3%, difference in 4- year event rate -12.1%; 95% CI: -22.6, -1.6%), whereas those without HF/LVD did not (13.0% vs. 14.6%, difference in 4-year event rate -1.6%; 95% CI: -3.8%, 0.7%; p-interaction = 0.055). A similar differential effect was seen for the primary outcome, all-cause mortality, and CV mortality when invasive versus conservative strategy associated outcomes were analyzed with LVEF as a continuous variable for those with and without prior HF. Conclusions: ISCHEMIA trial participants with stable ischemic heart disease and at least moderate ischemia with a history of HF or LVD were at increased risk for the primary outcome. In the small, high-risk subgroup with HF and LVEF 35-45%, an initial invasive approach was associated with a better event-free survival. This result should be considered hypothesis generating.

Initial Invasive Versus Conservative Management of Stable Ischemic Heart Disease in Patients With a History of Heart Failure or Left Ventricular Dysfunction: Insights From the ISCHEMIA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Whether an initial invasive strategy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and at least moderate ischemia improves outcomes in the setting of a history of heart failure (HF) or left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) when ejection fraction is ≥35% but <45% is unknown. METHODS: Among 5179 participants randomized into ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches), all of whom had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥35%, we compared cardiovascular outcomes by treatment strategy in participants with a history of HF/LVD at baseline versus those without HF/LVD. Median follow-up was 3.2 years. RESULTS: There were 398 (7.7%) participants with HF/LVD at baseline, of whom 177 had HF/LVEF >45%, 28 HF/LVEF 35% to 45%, and 193 LVEF 35% to 45% but no history of HF. HF/LVD was associated with more comorbidities at baseline, particularly previous myocardial infarction, stroke, and hypertension. Compared with patients without HF/LVD, participants with HF/LVD were more likely to experience a primary outcome composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, HF, or resuscitated cardiac arrest (4-year cumulative incidence rate, 22.7% versus 13.8%; cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction, 19.7% versus 12.3%; and all-cause death or HF, 15.0% versus 6.9%). Participants with HF/LVD randomized to the invasive versus conservative strategy had a lower rate of the primary outcome (17.2% versus 29.3%; difference in 4-year event rate, -12.1% [95% CI, -22.6 to -1.6%]), whereas those without HF/LVD did not (13.0% versus 14.6%; difference in 4-year event rate, -1.6% [95% CI, -3.8% to 0.7%]; P interaction = 0.055). A similar differential effect was seen for the primary outcome, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality when invasive versus conservative strategy-associated outcomes were analyzed with LVEF as a continuous variable for patients with and without previous HF. CONCLUSIONS: ISCHEMIA participants with stable ischemic heart disease and at least moderate ischemia with a history of HF or LVD were at increased risk for the primary outcome. In the small, high-risk subgroup with HF and LVEF 35% to 45%, an initial invasive approach was associated with better event-free survival. This result should be considered hypothesis-generating. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Plasma levels of DPP4 activity and sDPP4 are dissociated from inflammation in mice and humans.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) modulates inflammation by enzymatic cleavage of immunoregulatory peptides and through its soluble form (sDPP4) that directly engages immune cells. Here we examine whether reduction of DPP4 activity alters inflammation. Prolonged DPP4 inhibition increases plasma levels of sDPP4, and induces sDPP4 expression in lymphocyte-enriched organs in mice. Bone marrow transplantation experiments identify hematopoietic cells as the predominant source of plasma sDPP4 following catalytic DPP4 inhibition. Surprisingly, systemic DPP4 inhibition increases plasma levels of inflammatory markers in regular chow-fed but not in high fat-fed mice. Plasma levels of sDPP4 and biomarkers of inflammation are lower in metformin-treated subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular disease, yet exhibit considerable inter-individual variation. Sitagliptin therapy for 12 months reduces DPP4 activity yet does not increase markers of inflammation or levels of sDPP4. Collectively our findings dissociate levels of DPP4 enzyme activity, sDPP4 and biomarkers of inflammation in mice and humans.

Exploring the Possible Impact of Unbalanced Open-Label Drop-In of Glucose-Lowering Medications on EXSCEL Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: EXSCEL (Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering) assessed the impact of once-weekly exenatide 2 mg versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, while aiming for glycemic equipoise. Consequently, greater drop-in of open-label glucose-lowering medications occurred in the placebo group. Accordingly, we explored the potential effects of their unbalanced use on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke, and all-cause mortality (ACM), given that some of these agents are cardioprotective. METHODS: Cox hazard models were performed by randomized treatment for drug classes where >5% open-label drop-in glucose-lowering medication occurred, and for glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs; 3.0%) using three methodologies: drop-in visit right censoring, inverse probability for treatment weighting (IPTW), and applying drug class risk reductions. RESULTS: Baseline glucose-lowering medications for the 14 752 EXSCEL participants (73.1% with previous cardiovascular disease) did not differ between treatment groups. During median 3.2 years follow-up, open-label drop-in occurred in 33.4% of participants, more frequently with placebo than exenatide (38.1% versus 28.8%), with metformin (6.1% versus 4.9%), sulfonylurea (8.7% versus 6.9%), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (10.6% versus 7.5%), SGLT-2i (10.3% versus 8.1%), GLP-1 RA (3.4% versus 2.4%), and insulin (13.8% versus 9.4%). The MACE effect size was not altered meaningfully by right censoring, but the favorable HR for exenatide became nominally significant in the sulfonylurea and any glucose-lowering medication groups, while the ACM HR and p-values were essentially unchanged. IPTW decreased the MACE HR from 0.91 (P=0.061) to 0.85 (P=0.008) and the ACM HR from 0.86 (P=0.016) to 0.81 (P=0.012). Application of literature-derived risk reductions showed no meaningful changes in MACE or ACM HRs or P values, although simulations of substantially greater use of drop-in cardioprotective glucose-lowering agents demonstrated blunting of signal detection. CONCLUSIONS: EXSCEL-observed HRs for MACE and ACM remained robust after right censoring or application of literature-derived risk reductions, but the exenatide versus placebo MACE effect size and statistical significance were increased by IPTW. Effects of open-label drop-in cardioprotective medications need to be considered carefully when designing, conducting, and analyzing cardiovascular outcome trials of glucose-lowering agents under the premise of glycemic equipoise. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01144338.

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol treatment and outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease: Insights from TECOS.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients are at increased risk for cardiovascular (CV) events. Most guidelines recommend treating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels to ≤70 mg/dL (1.8 mM) for patients with T2D and established atherosclerotic CV disease, and some a more aggressive target of ≤55 mg/dL (1.4 mM). Our objective was to assess the degree to which these LDL-C targets are achieved in routine practice. METHODS: Using data from TECOS, an international pragmatic CV outcomes trial of sitagliptin vs placebo, we assessed lipid-lowering treatment among patients with T2D and CV disease, baseline lipid values, and the association between baseline LDL-C and 5-year risk for major adverse cardiac events (MACE; ie, CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke). RESULTS: Overall, 11,066 of 14,671 TECOS participants (75.4%) had LDL-C measured at baseline. Median age was 65 years, 72% were male, and median T2D duration was 10 years. Overall, 82.5% of patients were on statins; only 5.8% were on ezetimibe. At baseline, 14.3% had LDL-C ≤55 mg/dL, 18.4% between 55.1 and 70 mg/dL, 35% between 70.1 and 100 mg/dL, and 32.3% >100 mg/dL. Each 10 mg/dL higher LDL-C value was associated with a higher risk of MACE (HR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03-1.07) or CV death (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04-1.09). CONCLUSIONS: Although most high-risk patients with T2D and CV disease were on lipid-lowering therapy, only 1:3 had LDL-C <70 mg/dL and 1:6 had LDL-C <55 mg/dL. Each 10 mg/dL higher LDL-C value was associated with a 5% and 6% higher 5-year incidence of MACE and CV death, respectively. (TECOS, NCT00790205).

Confirming the Bidirectional Nature of the Association Between Severe Hypoglycemic and Cardiovascular Events in Type 2 Diabetes: Insights From EXSCEL.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to confirm a bidirectional association between severe hypoglycemic events (SHEs) and cardiovascular (CV) event risk and to characterize individuals at dual risk. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In a post hoc analysis of 14,752 Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL) participants, we examined time-dependent associations between SHEs and subsequent major adverse cardiac events (CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI] or stroke), fatal/nonfatal MI, fatal/nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome (hACS), hospitalization for heart failure (hHF), and all-cause mortality (ACM), as well as time-dependent associations between nonfatal CV events and subsequent SHEs. RESULTS: SHEs were uncommon and not associated with once-weekly exenatide therapy (hazard ratio 1.13 [95% CI 0.94-1.36], P = 0.179). In fully adjusted models, SHEs were associated with an increased risk of subsequent ACM (1.83 [1.38-2.42], P < 0.001), CV death (1.60 [1.11-2.30], P = 0.012), and hHF (2.09 [1.37-3.17], P = 0.001), while nonfatal MI (2.02 [1.35-3.01], P = 0.001), nonfatal stroke (2.30 [1.25-4.23], P = 0.007), hACS (2.00 [1.39-2.90], P < 0.001), and hHF (3.24 [1.98-5.30], P < 0.001) were all associated with a subsequent increased risk of SHEs. The elevated bidirectional time-dependent hazards linking SHEs and a composite of all CV events were approximately constant over time, with those individuals at dual risk showing higher comorbidity scores compared with those without. CONCLUSIONS: These findings, showing greater risk of SHEs after CV events as well as greater risk of CV events after SHEs, validate a bidirectional relationship between CV events and SHEs in patients with high comorbidity scores.

Antithrombotic treatment gap among patients with atrial fibrillation and type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the use of different antithrombotic therapies at baseline among patients with a history of atrial fibrillation (AF), type 2 diabetes, and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) enrolled in the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS). METHODS: TECOS participants with a history of AF were stratified by CHA2DS2-VASc score and their antithrombotic use evaluated. Cox proportional hazards models were employed to explore possible associations between history of AF and prespecified clinical outcomes after adjusting for key baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 14,671 TECOS participants, 1167 (8%) had a history of AF, of whom 51.6% were using vitamin K antagonists (VKA); 31.2% used VKA alone, 16.9% used aspirin plus VKA, 1.8% used clopidogrel plus VKA, and 1.7% used aspirin and clopidogrel plus VKA. Aspirin was used by 56.8%: 30.9% used aspirin alone and 7.3% aspirin plus clopidogrel. Clopidogrel alone was used by 2.9%, and 7.3% were not using any antithrombotic medication. Participants with a history of AF had a higher risk of cardiovascular events, including hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality, than those without AF. White, older men with prior myocardial infarction, heart failure, peripheral artery disease, or prior stroke were more likely to develop new-onset AF than others without these characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of high-risk AF patients with diabetes and established ASCVD in TECOS were not treated with anticoagulation therapy despite clear guideline recommendations for such therapy, highlighting the challenge and potential for clinical improvements in managing these patients in clinical practice. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00790205.

Does prior coronary angioplasty affect outcomes of surgical coronary revascularization? Insights from the STICH trial.

BACKGROUND: The STICH trial showed superiority of coronary artery bypass plus medical treatment (CABG) over medical treatment alone (MED) in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%. In previous publications, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) prior to CABG was associated with worse prognosis. OBJECTIVES: The main purpose of this study was to analyse if prior PCI influenced outcomes in STICH. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients in the STICH trial (n = 1212), followed for a median time of 9.8 years, were included in the present analyses. In the total population, 156 had a prior PCI (74 and 82, respectively, in the MED and CABG groups). In those with vs. without prior PCI, the adjusted hazard-ratios (aHRs) were 0.92 (95% CI = 0.74-1.15) for all-cause mortality, 0.85 (95% CI = 0.64-1.11) for CV mortality, and 1.43 (95% CI = 1.15-1.77) for CV hospitalization. In the group randomized to CABG without prior PCI, the aHRs were 0.82 (95% CI = 0.70-0.95) for all-cause mortality, 0.75 (95% CI = 0.62-0.90) for CV mortality and 0.67 (95% CI = 0.56-0.80) for CV hospitalization. In the group randomized to CABG with prior PCI, the aHRs were 0.76 (95% CI = 0.50-1.15) for all-cause mortality, 0.81 (95% CI = 0.49-1.36) for CV mortality and 0.61 (95% CI = 0.41-0.90) for CV hospitalization. There was no evidence of interaction between randomized treatment and prior PCI for any endpoint (all adjusted p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: In the STICH trial, prior PCI did not affect the outcomes of patients whether they were treated medically or surgically, and the superiority of CABG over MED remained unchanged regardless of prior PCI. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov; Identifier: NCT00023595.

Progression of glucose-lowering diabetes therapy in TECOS.

AIMS: TECOS was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessing the impact of sitagliptin vs. placebo on cardiovascular outcomes when added to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes. We report the use of concomitant diabetes medications and the risk for progression to insulin during follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: TECOS enrolled 14 671 participants with HbA1c 6.5%-8.0% on monotherapy with metformin, pioglitazone, sulfonylurea (SU), or dual therapy with two oral agents or insulin with or without metformin. Subsequent diabetes management was by the participant's usual care physician. Time to initiation of insulin and risk of hypoglycaemia were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: The most common glucose-lowering regimens at baseline were metformin monotherapy (30.2%), SU monotherapy (8.5%), metformin/SU therapy (35.1%), and insulin with or without metformin (13.9% and 8.6%, respectively). Over a median 3.0 years' follow-up, diabetes therapy was intensified in 25.2% of participants (sitagliptin 22.0%, placebo 28.3%). Medications most commonly added were SU (8.3%) or insulin (8.8%). Insulin initiation in the usual care setting occurred at mean (standard deviation) HbA1c of 8.5 (1.5)%. Sitagliptin did not impact rates of severe hypoglycaemia, but delayed progression to insulin when added to metformin or metformin/SU regimens. CONCLUSION: Consistent with the trial's pragmatic design, TECOS participants underwent typical progression of diabetes medications. Sitagliptin was associated with lower HbA1c, without increased risk for severe hypoglycaemia and was associated with delayed progression to insulin when added to metformin with or without SU.

Burden of medical co-morbidities and benefit from surgical revascularization in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy.

AIMS: The landmark STICH trial found that surgical revascularization compared to medical therapy alone improved survival in patients with heart failure (HF) of ischaemic aetiology and an ejection fraction (EF) ≤ 35%. However, the interaction between the burden of medical co-morbidities and the benefit from surgical revascularization has not been previously described in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy. METHODS AND RESULTS: The STICH trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00023595) enrolled patients ≥ 18 years of age with coronary artery disease amenable to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and an EF ≤ 35%. Eligible participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive medical therapy (MED) (n = 602) or MED/CABG (n = 610). A modified Charlson co-morbidity index (CCI) based on the availability of data and study definitions was calculated by summing the weighted points for all co-morbid conditions. Patients were divided into mild/moderate (CCI 1-4) and severe (CCI ≥ 5) co-morbidity. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the association between CCI and outcomes and the interaction between severity of co-morbidity and treatment effect. The study population included 349 patients (29%) with a mild/moderate CCI score and 863 patients (71%) with a severe CCI score. Patients with a severe CCI score had greater functional limitations based on 6-min walk test and impairments in health-related quality of life as assessed by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. A total of 161 patients (Kaplan-Meier rate = 50%) with a mild/moderate CCI score and 579 patients (Kaplan-Meier rate = 69%) with a severe CCI score died over a median follow-up of 9.8 years. After adjusting for baseline confounders, patients with a severe CCI score were at higher risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.44, 95% confidence interval 1.19-1.74; P < 0.001). There was no interaction between CCI score and treatment effect on survival (P = 0.756). CONCLUSIONS: More than 70% of patients had a severe burden of medical co-morbidities at baseline, which was independently associated with increased risk of death. There was not a differential benefit of surgical revascularization with respect to survival based on severity of co-morbidity.

Society of Thoracic Surgeons Risk Score and EuroSCORE-2 Appropriately Assess 30-Day Postoperative Mortality in the STICH Trial and a Contemporary Cohort of Patients With Left Ventricular Dysfunction Undergoing Surgical Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: The STICH trial (Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure) demonstrated a survival benefit of coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and left ventricular dysfunction. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score and the EuroSCORE-2 (ES2) are used for risk assessment in cardiac surgery, with little information available about their accuracy in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. We assessed the ability of the STS score and ES2 to evaluate 30-day postoperative mortality risk in STICH and a contemporary cohort (CC) of patients with a left ventricle ejection fraction ≤35% undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting outside of a trial setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: The STS and ES2 scores were calculated for 814 STICH patients and 1246 consecutive patients in a CC. There were marked variations in 30-day postoperative mortality risk from 1 patient to another. The STS scores consistently calculated lower risk scores than ES2 (1.5 versus 2.9 for the CC and 0.9 versus 2.4 for the STICH cohort), and underestimated postoperative mortality risk. The STS and ES2 scores had moderately good C statistics: CC (0.727, 95% CI: 0.650-0.803 for STS, and 0.707, 95% CI: 0.620-0.795 for ES2); STICH (0.744, 95% CI: 0.677-0.812, for STS and 0.736, 95% CI: 0.665-0.808 for ES2). Despite the CC patients having higher STS and ES2 scores than STICH patients, mortality (3.5%) was lower than that of STICH (4.8%), suggesting a possible decrease in postoperative mortality over the past decade. CONCLUSIONS: The 30-day postoperative mortality risk of coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with left ventricular dysfunction varies markedly. Both the STS and ES2 score are effective in evaluating risk, although the STS score tend to underestimate risk. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00023595.

Sex differences in management and outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease: A report from TECOS.

AIM: To examine sex differences in baseline characteristics and outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic vascular disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cox models were used to analyse the association between sex and outcomes in the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS), a randomized, placebo-controlled trial assessing the impact of sitagliptin on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic vascular disease. RESULTS: A total of 4297 women and 10 374 men were followed for a median of 3.0 years. Women were slightly older and more often had cerebrovascular disease and peripheral arterial disease but less often coronary heart disease than men. At baseline, women were less likely to use aspirin or statins. The primary composite outcome of CV death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina occurred in 418 women (9.7%) and 1272 men (12.3%; 3.48 vs 4.38 events/100 participant-years, crude hazard ratio [HR] 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-0.89, adjusted HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55-0.74; P < .0001). Women also had a significantly lower risk of secondary CV outcomes and all-cause death. CONCLUSIONS: In this large prospective study of people with type 2 diabetes and CV disease, women had different CV disease burden, worse CV risk factor profiles, and less use of indicated medications than men. Despite this, women had significantly lower risk of CV events, suggesting that the cardioprotective effects of female sex extend to populations with type 2 diabetes.