Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 168
Filtrar
1.
Gastroenterology ; 157(3): 682-691, ago., 30 2019. ilus, tab
Artigo em Inglês | Sec. Est. Saúde SP, SESSP-IDPCPROD, Sec. Est. Saúde SP | ID: biblio-1015771

RESUMO

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are effective at treating acid-related disorders. These drugs are well tolerated in the short term, but long-term treatment was associated with adverse events in observational studies. We aimed to confirm these findings in an adequately powered randomized trial. METHODS: We performed a 3 x 2 partial factorial double-blind trial of 17,598 participants with stable cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease randomly assigned to groups given pantoprazole (40 mg daily, n = 8791) or placebo (n = 8807). Participants were also randomly assigned to groups that received rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) with aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg) alone. We collected data on development of pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, other enteric infections, fractures, gastric atrophy, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, chronic obstructive lung disease, dementia, cardiovascular disease, cancer, hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality every 6 months. Patients were followed up for a median of 3.01 years, with 53,152 patient-years of follow-up. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the pantoprazole and placebo groups in safety events except for enteric infections (1.4% vs 1.0% in the placebo group; odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.75). For all other safety outcomes, proportions were similar between groups except for C difficile infection, which was approximately twice as common in the pantoprazole vs the placebo group, although there were only 13 events, so this difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: In a large placebo-controlled randomized trial, we found that pantoprazole is not associated with any adverse event when used for 3 years, with the possible exception of an increased risk of enteric infections. (AU)


Assuntos
Bactérias , Doenças Cardiovasculares , Aspirina
2.
Gastroenterology ; 157(2): 403-412, Aug., 2019. tabela, grafico
Artigo em Inglês | Sec. Est. Saúde SP, SESSP-IDPCPROD, Sec. Est. Saúde SP | ID: biblio-1022748

RESUMO

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Antiplatelets and anticoagulants are associated with increased upper gastrointestinal bleeding. We evaluated whether proton pump inhibitor therapy could reduce this risk. METHODS: We performed a 3 × 2 partial factorial double-blind trial of 17,598 participants with stable cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease. Participants were randomly assigned to groups given pantoprazole 40 mg daily or placebo, as well as rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily with aspirin 100 mg once daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily, or aspirin 100 mg alone. The primary outcome was time to first upper gastrointestinal event, defined as a composite of overt bleeding, upper gastrointestinal bleeding from a gastroduodenal lesion or of unknown origin, occult bleeding, symptomatic gastroduodenal ulcer or ≥5 erosions, upper gastrointestinal obstruction, or perforation. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in upper gastrointestinal events between the pantoprazole group (102 of 8791 events) and the placebo group (116 of 8807 events) (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-1.15). Pantoprazole significantly reduced bleeding of gastroduodenal lesions (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.94; P = .03); this reduction was greater when we used a post-hoc definition of bleeding gastroduodenal lesion (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.74), although the number needed to treat still was high (n = 982; 95% confidence interval, 609-2528).CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized placebo-controlled trial, we found that routine use of proton pump inhibitors in patients receiving low-dose anticoagulation and/or aspirin for stable cardiovascular disease does not reduce upper gastrointestinal events, but may reduce bleeding from gastroduodenal lesions. ClinicalTrials. (AU)


Assuntos
Humanos , Masculino , Feminino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Doenças Cardiovasculares/prevenção & controle , Aspirina/administração & dosagem , Método Duplo-Cego , Relação Dose-Resposta a Droga , Hemorragia Gastrointestinal/prevenção & controle , Anticoagulantes/administração & dosagem
4.
Gastroenterology ; 157(3): 682-691.e2, 2019 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31152740

RESUMO

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are effective at treating acid-related disorders. These drugs are well tolerated in the short term, but long-term treatment was associated with adverse events in observational studies. We aimed to confirm these findings in an adequately powered randomized trial. METHODS: We performed a 3 × 2 partial factorial double-blind trial of 17,598 participants with stable cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease randomly assigned to groups given pantoprazole (40 mg daily, n = 8791) or placebo (n = 8807). Participants were also randomly assigned to groups that received rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) with aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg) alone. We collected data on development of pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, other enteric infections, fractures, gastric atrophy, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, chronic obstructive lung disease, dementia, cardiovascular disease, cancer, hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality every 6 months. Patients were followed up for a median of 3.01 years, with 53,152 patient-years of follow-up. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the pantoprazole and placebo groups in safety events except for enteric infections (1.4% vs 1.0% in the placebo group; odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.75). For all other safety outcomes, proportions were similar between groups except for C difficile infection, which was approximately twice as common in the pantoprazole vs the placebo group, although there were only 13 events, so this difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: In a large placebo-controlled randomized trial, we found that pantoprazole is not associated with any adverse event when used for 3 years, with the possible exception of an increased risk of enteric infections. ClinicalTrials.gov Number: NCT01776424.


Assuntos
Aspirina/administração & dosagem , Doenças Cardiovasculares/tratamento farmacológico , Inibidores do Fator Xa/administração & dosagem , Hemorragia Gastrointestinal/prevenção & controle , Pantoprazol/administração & dosagem , Doença Arterial Periférica/tratamento farmacológico , Inibidores da Agregação de Plaquetas/administração & dosagem , Inibidores da Bomba de Prótons/administração & dosagem , Rivaroxabana/administração & dosagem , Idoso , Aspirina/efeitos adversos , Doenças Cardiovasculares/diagnóstico , Método Duplo-Cego , Esquema de Medicação , Enterocolite Pseudomembranosa/induzido quimicamente , Enterocolite Pseudomembranosa/microbiologia , Inibidores do Fator Xa/efeitos adversos , Feminino , Hemorragia Gastrointestinal/induzido quimicamente , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pantoprazol/efeitos adversos , Doença Arterial Periférica/diagnóstico , Inibidores da Agregação de Plaquetas/efeitos adversos , Estudos Prospectivos , Inibidores da Bomba de Prótons/efeitos adversos , Medição de Risco , Fatores de Risco , Rivaroxabana/efeitos adversos , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento
5.
Eur J Heart Fail ; 21(8): 998-1007, 2019 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31134724

RESUMO

AIMS: To assess tolerability and optimal time point for initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in patients stabilised after acute heart failure (AHF). METHODS AND RESULTS: TRANSITION was a randomised, multicentre, open-label study comparing two treatment initiation modalities of sacubitril/valsartan. Patients aged ≥ 18 years, hospitalised for AHF were stratified according to pre-admission use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and randomised (n = 1002) after stabilisation to initiate sacubitril/valsartan either ≥ 12-h pre-discharge or between Days 1-14 post-discharge. Starting dose (as per label) was 24/26 mg or 49/51 mg bid with up- or down-titration based on tolerability. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients attaining 97/103 mg bid target dose after 10 weeks. Median time of first dose of sacubitril/valsartan from the day of discharge was Day -1 and Day +1 in the pre-discharge group and the post-discharge group, respectively. Comparable proportions of patients in the pre- and post-discharge initiation groups met the primary endpoint [45.4% vs. 50.7%; risk ratio (RR) 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79-1.02]. The proportion of patients who achieved and maintained for ≥ 2 weeks leading to Week 10, either 49/51 or 97/103 mg bid was 62.1% vs. 68.5% (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.83-0.99); or any dose was 86.0% vs. 89.6% (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.92-1.01). Discontinuation due to adverse events occurred in 7.3% vs. 4.9% of patients (RR 1.49; 95% CI 0.90-2.46). CONCLUSIONS: Initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in a wide range of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients stabilised after an AHF event, either in hospital or shortly after discharge, is feasible with about half of the patients achieving target dose within 10 weeks. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02661217.

6.
Gastroenterology ; 157(2): 403-412.e5, 2019 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31054846

RESUMO

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Antiplatelets and anticoagulants are associated with increased upper gastrointestinal bleeding. We evaluated whether proton pump inhibitor therapy could reduce this risk. METHODS: We performed a 3 × 2 partial factorial double-blind trial of 17,598 participants with stable cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease. Participants were randomly assigned to groups given pantoprazole 40 mg daily or placebo, as well as rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily with aspirin 100 mg once daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily, or aspirin 100 mg alone. The primary outcome was time to first upper gastrointestinal event, defined as a composite of overt bleeding, upper gastrointestinal bleeding from a gastroduodenal lesion or of unknown origin, occult bleeding, symptomatic gastroduodenal ulcer or ≥5 erosions, upper gastrointestinal obstruction, or perforation. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in upper gastrointestinal events between the pantoprazole group (102 of 8791 events) and the placebo group (116 of 8807 events) (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-1.15). Pantoprazole significantly reduced bleeding of gastroduodenal lesions (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.94; P = .03); this reduction was greater when we used a post-hoc definition of bleeding gastroduodenal lesion (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.74), although the number needed to treat still was high (n = 982; 95% confidence interval, 609-2528). CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized placebo-controlled trial, we found that routine use of proton pump inhibitors in patients receiving low-dose anticoagulation and/or aspirin for stable cardiovascular disease does not reduce upper gastrointestinal events, but may reduce bleeding from gastroduodenal lesions. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01776424.


Assuntos
Anticoagulantes/efeitos adversos , Doenças Cardiovasculares/prevenção & controle , Hemorragia Gastrointestinal/prevenção & controle , Pantoprazol/administração & dosagem , Úlcera Péptica/prevenção & controle , Inibidores da Bomba de Prótons/administração & dosagem , Administração Oral , Idoso , Anticoagulantes/administração & dosagem , Aspirina/administração & dosagem , Aspirina/efeitos adversos , Relação Dose-Resposta a Droga , Método Duplo-Cego , Esquema de Medicação , Quimioterapia Combinada/efeitos adversos , Quimioterapia Combinada/métodos , Feminino , Hemorragia Gastrointestinal/induzido quimicamente , Hemorragia Gastrointestinal/epidemiologia , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Úlcera Péptica/induzido quimicamente , Úlcera Péptica/epidemiologia , Rivaroxabana/administração & dosagem , Rivaroxabana/efeitos adversos , Resultado do Tratamento
7.
Can J Cardiol ; 35(5): 644-652, 2019 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31030865

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease risk assessment tools help identify individuals likely to benefit from preventative therapies. In this study we compared outcomes using the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) risk algorithm and the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) tool in the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE)-3 study. METHODS: We compared outcomes using the ACC/AHA algorithm and the FRS with those seen in HOPE-3, which randomized participants to 10 mg rosuvastatin or placebo. The first coprimary outcome was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke; second coprimary outcome additionally included heart failure, cardiac arrest, and revascularization. RESULTS: Relative risks using risk scores were similar to those observed in the HOPE-3. Hazards ratios for the first coprimary outcome according to risk categories of ≤ 10%, 10%-20%, and ≥ 20% using the ACC/AHA algorithm were 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-1.28), 0.72 (95% CI, 0.53-0.96), and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.55-0.93), and absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 0.18%, 1.33%, and 1.85%, respectively, over a median of 5.6 years. Corresponding results using the FRS were 0.69 (95% CI, 0.36-1.35), 0.73 (95% CI, 0.52-1.01), and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.60- 0.94); and ARR of 1.32%, 0.61%, and 1.43%. Hazard ratios for the second coprimary outcome were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.51-1.14), 0.73 (95% CI, 0.56-0.95), and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.58-0.94); and ARR of 0.36%, 1.49%, and 1.85%, using the ACC/AHA algorithm and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.41-1.41), 0.70 (95% CI, 0.52-0.95), and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.62-0.94); and ARR of 1.08%, 0.83%, and 1.56% using the FRS. CONCLUSIONS: The pragmatic HOPE-3 trial approach identifies in an ethnically diverse primary prevention population individuals at intermediate risk who benefit from statin therapy using simple clinical characteristics without the need for complex, currently used risk assessment tools.

8.
Eur Heart J ; 40(25): 2032-2043, 2019 Jul 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30919899

RESUMO

AIMS: Studies have shown a non-linear relationship between systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and outcomes, with increased risk observed at both low and high blood pressure (BP) levels. We hypothesized that the BP-risk association is different in individuals with and without diabetes at high cardiovascular risk. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified patients with (N = 11 487) or without diabetes (N = 19 450), from 30 937 patients, from 133 centres in 44 countries with a median follow-up of 56 months in the ONTARGET/TRANSCEND studies. Patients had a prior history of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), peripheral artery disease, or were high-risk diabetics. Patients in ONTARGET had been randomized to ramipril 10 mg daily, telmisartan 80 mg daily, or the combination of both. Patients in TRANSCEND were ACE intolerant and randomized to telmisartan 80 mg daily or matching placebo. We analysed the association of mean achieved in-trial SBP and DBP with the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke and hospitalization for congestive heart failure (CHF), the components of the composite, and all-cause death. Data were analysed by Cox regression and restricted cubic splines, adjusting for risk markers including treatment allocation and accompanying cardiovascular treatments. In patients with diabetes, event rates were higher across the whole spectrum of SBP and DBP compared with those without diabetes (P < 0.0001 for the primary composite outcome, P < 0.01 for all other endpoints). Mean achieved in-trial SBP ≥160 mmHg was associated with increased risk for the primary outcome [diabetes/no diabetes: adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 2.31 (1.93-2.76)/1.66 (1.36-2.02) compared with non-diabetics with SBP 120 to <140 mmHg], with similar findings for all other endpoints in patients with diabetes, and for MI and stroke in patients without diabetes. In-trial SBP <120 mmHg was associated with increased risk for the combined outcome in patients with diabetes [HR 1.53 (1.27-1.85)], and for cardiovascular death and all-cause death in all patients. In-trial DBP ≥90 mmHg was associated with increased risk for the primary outcome [diabetes/no diabetes: HR 2.32 (1.91-2.82)/1.61 (1.35-1.93) compared with non-diabetics with DBP 70 to <80 mmHg], with similar findings for all other endpoints, but not for CHF hospitalizations in patients without diabetes. In-trial DBP <70 mmHg was associated with increased risk for the combined outcome in all patients [diabetes/no diabetes: HR 1.77 (1.51-2.06)/1.30 (1.16-1.46)], and also for all other endpoints except stroke. CONCLUSION: High on treatment BP levels (≥160 or ≥90 mmHg) are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular outcomes and death. Also low levels (<120 or <70 mmHg) are associated with increased cardiovascular outcomes (except stroke) and death. Patients with diabetes have consistently higher risks over the whole BP range, indicating that achieving optimal BP goals is most impactful in this group. These data favour guidelines taking lower BP boundaries into consideration, in particular in diabetes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://clinicaltrials.gov.Unique identifier: NCT00153101.

9.
Neurology ; 92(13): e1435-e1446, 2019 Mar 26.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30814321

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether long-term treatment with candesartan/hydrochlorothiazide, rosuvastatin, or their combination can slow cognitive decline in older people at intermediate cardiovascular risk. METHODS: The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation-3 (HOPE-3) study was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial using a 2 × 2 factorial design. Participants without known cardiovascular disease or need for treatment were randomized to candesartan (16 mg) plus hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 mg) or placebo and to rosuvastatin (10 mg) or placebo. Participants who were ≥70 years of age completed the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST), the modified Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and the Trail Making Test Part B at baseline and study end. RESULTS: Cognitive assessments were completed by 2,361 participants from 228 centers in 21 countries. Compared with placebo, candesartan/hydrochlorothiazide reduced systolic blood pressure by 6.0 mm Hg, and rosuvastatin reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 24.8 mg/dL. Participants were followed up for 5.7 years (median), and 1,626 completed both baseline and study-end assessments. Mean participant age was 74 years (SD ±3.5 years); 59% were women; 45% had hypertension; and 24% had ≥12 years of education. The mean difference in change in DSST scores was -0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI] -2.25 to 0.42) for candesartan/hydrochlorothiazide compared with placebo, -0.54 (95% CI -1.88 to 0.80) for rosuvastatin compared with placebo, and -1.43 (95% CI -3.37 to 0.50) for combination therapy vs double placebo. No significant differences were found for other measures. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term blood pressure lowering with candesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide, rosuvastatin, or their combination did not significantly affect cognitive decline in older people. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00468923. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that for older people, candesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide, rosuvastatin, or their combination does not significantly affect cognitive decline.

10.
J Am Coll Cardiol ; 73(2): 121-130, 2019 Jan 22.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30654882

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Patients with recent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery are at risk for early graft failure, which is associated with a risk of myocardial infarction and death. In the COMPASS (Cardiovascular OutcoMes for People Using Anticoagulation StrategieS) trial, rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg once daily compared with aspirin 100 mg once daily reduced the primary major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) outcome of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. Rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily alone did not significantly reduce MACE. OBJECTIVES: This pre-planned substudy sought to determine whether the COMPASS treatments are more effective than aspirin alone for preventing graft failure and MACE after CABG surgery. METHODS: The substudy randomized 1,448 COMPASS trial patients 4 to 14 days after CABG surgery to receive the combination of rivaroxaban plus aspirin, rivaroxaban alone, or aspirin alone. The primary outcome was graft failure, diagnosed by computed tomography angiogram 1 year after surgery. RESULTS: The combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin and the regimen of rivaroxaban alone did not reduce the graft failure rates compared with aspirin alone (combination vs. aspirin: 113 [9.1%] vs. 91 [8.0%] failed grafts; odds ratio [OR]: 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.82 to 1.57; p = 0.45; rivaroxaban alone vs. aspirin: 92 [7.8%] vs. 92 [8.0%] failed grafts; OR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.33; p = 0.75). Compared with aspirin, the combination was associated with fewer MACE (12 [2.4%] vs. 16 [3.5%]; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.33 to 1.47; p = 0.34), whereas rivaroxaban alone was not (16 [3.3%] vs. 16 [3.5%]; HR: 0.99, CI: 0.50 to 1.99; p = 0.98). There was no fatal bleeding or tamponade within 30 days of randomization. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin or rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily alone compared with aspirin alone did not reduce graft failure in patients with recent CABG surgery, but the combination of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin was associated with similar reductions in MACE, as observed in the larger COMPASS trial. (Cardiovascular OutcoMes for People Using Anticoagulation StrategieS [COMPASS]; NCT01776424).

11.
Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes ; 5(3): 266-271, 2019 Jul 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30657891

RESUMO

AIMS: The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation-3 (HOPE-3) found that rosuvastatin alone or with candesartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) (in a subgroup with hypertension) significantly lowered cardiovascular events compared with placebo in 12 705 individuals from 21 countries at intermediate risk and without cardiovascular disease. We assessed the costs implications of implementation in primary prevention in countries at different economic levels. METHODS AND RESULTS: Hospitalizations, procedures, study and non-study medications were documented. We applied country-specific costs to the healthcare resources consumed for each patient. We calculated the average cost per patient in US dollars for the duration of the study (5.6 years). Sensitivity analyses were also performed with cheapest equivalent substitutes. The combination of rosuvastatin with candesartan/HCT reduced total costs and was a cost-saving strategy in United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia. In contrast, the treatments were more expensive in developing countries even when cheapest equivalent substitutes were used. After adjustment for gross domestic product (GDP), the costs of cheapest equivalent substitutes in proportion to the health care costs were higher in developing countries in comparison to developed countries. CONCLUSION: Rosuvastatin and candesartan/HCT in primary prevention is a cost-saving approach in developed countries, but not in developing countries as both drugs and their cheapest equivalent substitutes are relatively more expensive despite adjustment by GDP. Reductions in costs of these drugs in developing countries are essential to make statins and blood pressure lowering drugs affordable and ensure their use. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: HOPE-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00468923.

12.
Eur J Prev Cardiol ; 26(7): 681-697, 2019 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30537846

RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND DESIGN: There are limited data on the effects of blood pressure and cholesterol lowering in Asians at intermediate risk and no cardiovascular disease. We report an analysis of the effects of blood pressure and cholesterol lowering in Asians enrolled in the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation 3 (HOPE 3) trial. METHODS: We randomly assigned 6241 Asians and 6464 non-Asians at intermediate risk without cardiovascular disease to candesartan 16 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or placebo and rosuvastatin 10 mg or placebo. The first co-primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular disease death, myocardial infarction and stroke. The second co-primary outcome additionally included heart failure, cardiac arrest and revascularisation. Median follow-up was 5.6 years. RESULTS: Reduction in systolic blood pressure was less among Asians (4.3 vs. 7.7 mmHg for non-Asians, P < 0.0001) mainly due to a lesser effect in Chinese (2.1 mmHg) than in other Asians (7.3 mmHg), reduction in the latter being similar to non-Asians. The effect on the composite outcomes was similar, with no significant benefits from blood pressure lowering for either Asians (Chinese or non-Chinese) or non-Asians. Rosuvastatin reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol to a lesser degree in Asians (0.49 mmol/L (-19.1 mg/dL) compared with non-Asians 0.95 mmol/L (-36.7 mg/dL), Pinteraction < 0.0004). Yet both groups had similar reductions in the two co-primary outcomes. There was no increase in permanent medication discontinuation due to muscle-related symptoms in either group. There was an excess in new diabetes in non-Asians (4.70% rosuvastatin, 3.52% placebo, P = 0.025) but not in Asians (3.02% rosuvastatin, 4.04% placebo, P = 0.0342), Pinteraction = 0021. CONCLUSIONS: Candesartan/hydrochlorothiazide had fewer effects in reducing blood pressure in Chinese and rosuvastatin reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol to a lesser extent in Asians compared with non-Asians. There was no overall reduction in clinical events with lowering blood pressure in either Asians or non-Asians, whereas there were clear and consistent benefits with lipid lowering in both. Despite extensive analyses, we have no obvious explanation for the observed findings. Future studies need to include larger numbers of individuals from different regions of the world to ensure that the results of trials are applicable globally.

13.
Eur Heart J ; 2018 Dec 24.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30590564

RESUMO

Aims: Resting heart rate (RHR) has been shown to be associated with cardiovascular outcomes in various conditions. It is unknown whether different levels of RHR and different associations with cardiovascular outcomes occur in patients with or without diabetes, because the impact of autonomic neuropathy on vascular vulnerability might be stronger in diabetes. Methods and results: We examined 30 937 patients aged 55 years or older with a history of or at high risk for cardiovascular disease and after myocardial infarction, stroke, or with proven peripheral vascular disease from the ONTARGET and TRANSCEND trials investigating ramipril, telmisartan, and their combination followed for a median of 56 months. We analysed the association of mean achieved RHR on-treatment with the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, the components of the composite primary outcome, and all-cause death as continuous and categorical variables. Data were analysed by Cox regression analysis, ANOVA, and χ2 test. These trials were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov.number NCT00153101. Patients were recruited from 733 centres in 40 countries between 1 December 2001 and 31 July 2008 (ONTARGET) and 1 November 2001 until 30 May 2004 (TRANSCEND). In total, 19 450 patients without diabetes and 11 487 patients with diabetes were stratified by mean RHR. Patients with diabetes compared to no diabetes had higher RHRs (71.8 ± 9.0 vs. 67.9 ± 8.8, P < 0.0001). In the categories of <60 bpm, 60 ≤ 65 bpm, 65 ≤ 70 bpm, 70 ≤ 75 bpm, 75 ≤ 80 bpm and ≥80 bpm, non-diabetic patients had an increased hazard of the primary outcome with mean RHR of 75 ≤ 80 bpm (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.17 (1.01-1.36)) compared to RHR 60 ≤ 65 bpm. For patients with in-trial RHR ≥80 bpm the hazard ratios were highest (diabetes: 1.96 (1.64-2.34), no diabetes: 1.73 (1.49-2.00), For cardiovascular death hazards were also clearly increased at RHR ≥80 bpm (diabetes [1.99, (1.53-2.58)], no diabetes [1.73 (1.38-2.16)]. Similar results were obtained for hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause death while the effect of RHR on myocardial infarction and stroke was less pronounced. Results were robust after adjusting for various risk indicators including beta-blocker use and atrial fibrillation. No significant association to harm was observed at lower RHR. Conclusion: Mean RHR above 75-80 b.p.m. was associated with increased risk for cardiovascular outcomes except for stroke. Since in diabetes, high RHR is associated with higher absolute event numbers and patients have higher RHRs, this association might be of particular clinical importance in diabetes. These data suggest that RHR lowering in patients with RHRs above 75-80 b.p.m. needs to be studied in prospective trials to determine if it will reduce outcomes in diabetic and non-diabetic patients at high cardiovascular risk. Clinical Trial registration: http://clinicaltrials.gov.Unique identifier: NCT00153101.

14.
Can J Cardiol ; 34(10): 1350-1361, 2018 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30269832

RESUMO

A sea change in the management of diabetes is occurring with the publication of clinical trials showing unequivocal cardiovascular (CV) protection through the use of certain antihyperglycemic agents. This change is similar to the change that occurred when lipid lowering with statins was first shown to have CV benefits, an event necessitating changes in training and the proactive treatment of lipids by CV specialists. As was the case then, many CV specialists currently feel poorly equipped to address diabetes with this new information even though diabetes is common in CV practice. The purpose of this overview is to provide an updated, comprehensive, and evidence-based CV protection plan for patients with type 2 diabetes, intended specifically for cardiologists and vascular medicine specialists. We attempt to elucidate a set of "CardioDiabetes" core competencies by merging the CV-relevant elements of the Diabetes Canada 2018 guidelines within a framework of comprehensive vascular protection as supported by other CV guidelines. We review the rationale for measuring hemoglobin A1C, understanding its use for establishing a diagnosis and for monitoring treatment. We also provide a brief review of the medications most important for a CV specialist to know. We provide useful memory aids and a succinct set of reminders and tips ("ABCDEFR'S") that can serve as a comprehensive checklist in the clinic and help to motivate trainees and clinicians to consult the original guideline source documents to enrich their knowledge and improve treatment in this rapidly changing arena.

15.
J Am Heart Assoc ; 7(15)2018 Jul 22.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30033433

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: It is not clear whether the effects of lipid-lowering or antihypertensive medications are influenced by adherence to healthy lifestyle factors. We assessed the effects of both drug interventions in subgroups by the number of healthy lifestyle factors in participants in the HOPE-3 (Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation) trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this primary prevention trial, 4 healthy lifestyle factors (nonsmoking status, physical activity, optimal body weight, and healthy diet) were recorded in 12 521 participants who were at intermediate risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and were randomized to rosuvastatin, candesartan/hydrochlorothiazide, their combination, or matched placebos. Median follow-up was 5.6 years. The outcome was a composite of CVD events. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox regression models. Participants with ≥2 healthy lifestyle factors had a lower rate of CVD compared with those with fewer factors (HR: 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-1.00). Rosuvastatin reduced CVD events in participants with ≥2 healthy lifestyle factors (HR: 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.90) and in participants with <2 factors (HR: 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61-1.01). Consistent results were observed with combination therapy (≥2 factors: HR: 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.97; <2 factors: HR: 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43-0.88). Candesartan/hydrochlorothiazide tends to reduce CVD only in participants with <2 healthy lifestyle factors (HR: 0.78; 95% CI, 0.61-1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Healthy lifestyles are associated with lower CVD. Rosuvastatin alone and combined with candesartan/hydrochlorothiazide is beneficial regardless of healthy lifestyle status; however, the benefit of antihypertensive treatment appears to be limited to patients with less healthy lifestyles. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00239681.

16.
Int J Stroke ; : 1747493018784478, 2018 Jul 30.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30058959

RESUMO

Background Covert vascular disease of the brain manifests as infarcts, white matter hyperintensities, and microbleeds on MRI. Their cumulative effect is often a decline in cognition, motor impairment, and psychiatric disorders. Preventive therapies for covert brain ischemia have not been established but represent a huge unmet clinical need. Aims The MRI substudy examines the effects of the antithrombotic regimens in COMPASS on incident covert brain infarcts (the primary outcome), white matter hyperintensities, and cognitive and functional status in a sample of consenting COMPASS participants without contraindications to MRI. Methods COMPASS is a randomized superiority trial testing rivaroxaban 2.5 mg bid plus acetylsalicylic acid 100 mg and rivaroxaban 5 mg bid against acetylsalicylic acid 100 mg per day for the combined endpoint of MI, stroke, and cardiovascular death in individuals with stable coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease. T1-weighted, T2-weighted, T2*-weighted, and FLAIR images were obtained close to randomization and near the termination of assigned antithrombotic therapy; biomarker and genetic samples at randomization and one month, and cognitive and functional assessment at randomization, after two years and at the end of study. Results Between March 2013 and May 2016, 1905 participants were recruited from 86 centers in 16 countries. Of these participants, 1760 underwent baseline MRI scans that were deemed technically adequate for interpretation. The mean age at entry of participants with interpretable MRI was 71 years and 23.5% were women. Coronary artery disease was present in 90.4% and 28.1% had peripheral artery disease. Brain infarcts were present in 34.8%, 29.3% had cerebral microbleeds, and 93.0% had white matter hyperintensities. The median Montreal Cognitive Assessment score was 26 (interquartile range 23-28). Conclusions The COMPASS MRI substudy will examine the effect of the antithrombotic interventions on MRI-determined covert brain infarcts and cognition. Demonstration of a therapeutic effect of the antithrombotic regimens on brain infarcts would have implications for prevention of cognitive decline and provide insight into the pathogenesis of vascular cognitive decline.

17.
Eur Heart J ; 39(33): 3105-3114, 2018 Sep 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29873709

RESUMO

Aims: Current guidelines of hypertensive management recommend upper limits for systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). J-curve associations of BP with risk exist for some outcomes suggesting that lower limits of DBP goals may also apply. We examined the association between mean attained DBP and cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in patients who achieved an on-treatment SBP in the range of 120 to <140 mmHg in the Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET) and Telmisartan Randomized AssessmeNt Study in ACE iNtolerant participants with cardiovascular Disease (TRANSCEND) trials on patients with high CV risk. This SBP range was associated with the lowest CV risk. Methods: We analysed the outcome data from patients age 55 years or older with CV disease from the ONTARGET and TRANSCEND trials that randomized high-risk patients to ramipril, telmisartan, and the combination. In patients with controlled SBP (on-treatment 120 to <140 mmHg), the composite outcome of CV death, myocardial infarction, stroke and hospital admission for heart failure, the components thereof, and all-cause mortality were analysed according to mean on-treatment DBP as categorical (<70, 70 to <80, 80 to <90, and ≥90 mmHg) and continuous variable as well as the change of DBP according to baseline DBP. Pulse pressure (PP) was related to outcomes as a continuous variable. Results: In 16 099 of 31 546 patients, mean achieved SBP was 120 to <140 mmHg. The nominally lowest risk for all outcomes was observed at an achieved DBP of 70 to <80 mmHg. A higher achieved DBP was associated with a higher risk for the outcomes of stroke and of hospitalization for heart failure (≥80 mmHg) and myocardial infarction (≥90 mmHg). A lower achieved DBP (<70 mmHg) was associated with a higher risk for the primary outcome [hazard ratio (HR) 1.29, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.15-1.45; P < 0.0001], myocardial infarction HR 1.54 (95% CI 1.26-1.88, P < 0.0001) and hospitalization for heart failure HR 1.81 (95% CI 1.47-2.24, P < 0.0001) and all-cause death (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.04-1.35; P < 0.0001) while there was no signal for stroke and CV death compared to DBP 70 to <80 mmHg. A decrease of DBP was associated with lower risk when baseline DBP was >80 mmHg. The associations to outcomes were similar when patients were divided to SBP 120 to <130 mmHg or 130 to <140 mmHg for DBP or PP. Conclusion: Compared to a DBP of 70 to <80 mmHg, lower and higher DBP was associated with a higher risk in patients achieving a SBP of 120 to <140 mmHg. Associations of DBP and PP to risk were similar notably at controlled SBP. These data suggest at optimal achieved SBP, risk is still defined by low or high DBP. These findings support guidelines which take DBP at optimal SBP control into consideration.

18.
Can J Cardiol ; 34(1): 38-44, 2018 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29275880

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether modifying cholesterol, blood pressure, or both affect erectile dysfunction. Also, there are concerns that erectile dysfunction is worsened by common medications used to treat these risk factors. In this study, we evaluated the effect of: (1) cholesterol-lowering with a statin; (2) pharmacologic blood pressure reduction; and (3) their combination, on erectile function. METHODS: A priori, this was a secondary analysis of the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation-3 (HOPE-3) randomized controlled trial. Men were 55 years of age or older with at least 1 cardiovascular risk factor. Erectile function was measured using the erectile function domain of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-EF) score. Men with incomplete scores, or who did not engage in sexual activity, were excluded. Using a 2 × 2 factorial design, participants were randomized to rosuvastatin (10 mg/d) or placebo, and to candesartan with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ; 16 mg/12.5 mg/d; Cand+HCTZ) or placebo. Primary outcome was change in IIEF-EF from baseline to end of study follow-up. RESULTS: Two thousand one hundred fifty-three men were included; mean age was 61.5 years, and mean follow-up was 5.8 years. Mean IIEF-EF score at baseline was 23.0 (SD 5.6). Least square mean change in the IIEF-EF score did not differ with rosuvastatin compared with placebo (-1.4; standard error [SE], 0.3 vs -1.5; SE, 0.3; P = 0.74), Cand+HCTZ compared with placebo (-1.6; SE, 0.3 vs -1.3; SE, 0.3; P = 0.10), or combination therapy compared with double placebo (P = 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: Cholesterol-lowering using a statin, and blood pressure-lowering using Cand+HCTZ, either alone or in combination, do not improve or adversely affect erectile function.

19.
Lancet ; 391(10117): 205-218, 2018 01 20.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29132879

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and is a consequence of acute thrombotic events involving activation of platelets and coagulation proteins. Factor Xa inhibitors and aspirin each reduce thrombotic events but have not yet been tested in combination or against each other in patients with stable coronary artery disease. METHODS: In this multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, outpatient trial, patients with stable coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease were recruited at 602 hospitals, clinics, or community centres in 33 countries. This paper reports on patients with coronary artery disease. Eligible patients with coronary artery disease had to have had a myocardial infarction in the past 20 years, multi-vessel coronary artery disease, history of stable or unstable angina, previous multi-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention, or previous multi-vessel coronary artery bypass graft surgery. After a 30-day run in period, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive rivaroxaban (2·5 mg orally twice a day) plus aspirin (100 mg once a day), rivaroxaban alone (5 mg orally twice a day), or aspirin alone (100 mg orally once a day). Randomisation was computer generated. Each treatment group was double dummy, and the patients, investigators, and central study staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome of the COMPASS trial was the occurrence of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01776424, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between March 12, 2013, and May 10, 2016, 27 395 patients were enrolled to the COMPASS trial, of whom 24 824 patients had stable coronary artery disease from 558 centres. The combination of rivaroxaban plus aspirin reduced the primary outcome more than aspirin alone (347 [4%] of 8313 vs 460 [6%] of 8261; hazard ratio [HR] 0·74, 95% CI 0·65-0·86, p<0·0001). By comparison, treatment with rivaroxaban alone did not significantly improve the primary outcome when compared with treatment with aspirin alone (411 [5%] of 8250 vs 460 [6%] of 8261; HR 0·89, 95% CI 0·78-1·02, p=0·094). Combined rivaroxaban plus aspirin treatment resulted in more major bleeds than treatment with aspirin alone (263 [3%] of 8313 vs 158 [2%] of 8261; HR 1·66, 95% CI 1·37-2·03, p<0·0001), and similarly, more bleeds were seen in the rivaroxaban alone group than in the aspirin alone group (236 [3%] of 8250 vs 158 [2%] of 8261; HR 1·51, 95% CI 1·23-1·84, p<0·0001). The most common site of major bleeding was gastrointestinal, occurring in 130 [2%] patients who received combined rivaroxaban plus aspirin, in 84 [1%] patients who received rivaroxaban alone, and in 61 [1%] patients who received aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban plus aspirin reduced mortality when compared with aspirin alone (262 [3%] of 8313 vs 339 [4%] of 8261; HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·65-0·90, p=0·0012). INTERPRETATION: In patients with stable coronary artery disease, addition of rivaroxaban to aspirin lowered major vascular events, but increased major bleeding. There was no significant increase in intracranial bleeding or other critical organ bleeding. There was also a significant net benefit in favour of rivaroxaban plus aspirin and deaths were reduced by 23%. Thus, addition of rivaroxaban to aspirin has the potential to substantially reduce morbidity and mortality from coronary artery disease worldwide. FUNDING: Bayer AG.


Assuntos
Aspirina/uso terapêutico , Doença da Artéria Coronariana/tratamento farmacológico , Inibidores do Fator Xa/uso terapêutico , Inibidores da Agregação de Plaquetas/uso terapêutico , Rivaroxabana/uso terapêutico , Idoso , Aspirina/administração & dosagem , Aspirina/efeitos adversos , Doenças Cardiovasculares/mortalidade , Doenças Cardiovasculares/prevenção & controle , Doença da Artéria Coronariana/epidemiologia , Relação Dose-Resposta a Droga , Método Duplo-Cego , Esquema de Medicação , Quimioterapia Combinada , Inibidores do Fator Xa/administração & dosagem , Inibidores do Fator Xa/efeitos adversos , Feminino , Hemorragia/induzido quimicamente , Humanos , Masculino , Morbidade , Infarto do Miocárdio/epidemiologia , Infarto do Miocárdio/prevenção & controle , Inibidores da Agregação de Plaquetas/administração & dosagem , Inibidores da Agregação de Plaquetas/efeitos adversos , Rivaroxabana/administração & dosagem , Rivaroxabana/efeitos adversos , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/epidemiologia , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/prevenção & controle
20.
Lancet ; 391(10117): 205-218, 2018.
Artigo em Inglês | Sec. Est. Saúde SP, SESSP-IDPCPROD, Sec. Est. Saúde SP | ID: ses-36688

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and is a consequence of acute thrombotic events involving activation of platelets and coagulation proteins. Factor Xa inhibitors and aspirin each reduce thrombotic events but have not yet been tested in combination or against each other in patients with stable coronary artery disease. METHODS: In this multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, outpatient trial, patients with stable coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease were recruited at 602 hospitals, clinics, or community centres in 33 countries. This paper reports on patients with coronary artery disease. Eligible patients with coronary artery disease had to have had a myocardial infarction in the past 20 years, multi-vessel coronary artery disease, history of stable or unstable angina, previous multi-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention, or previous multi-vessel coronary artery bypass graft surgery. After a 30-day run in period, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive rivaroxaban (2·5 mg orally twice a day) plus aspirin (100 mg once a day), rivaroxaban alone (5 mg orally twice a day), or aspirin alone (100 mg orally once a day). Randomisation was computer generated. Each treatment group was double dummy, and the patients, investigators, and central study staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome of the COMPASS trial was the occurrence of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01776424, and is closed to new participants...(AU)


Assuntos
Rivaroxabana , Aspirina , Doença da Artéria Coronariana , Estudos de Casos e Controles
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA