Efficacy and Safety of Non-Vitamin-K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin Across the Spectrum of Body Mass Index and Body Weight: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of 4 Randomized Clinical Trials of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of non-vitamin-K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) across the spectrum of body mass index (BMI) and body weight (BW) remain uncertain. METHODS: We analyzed data from COMBINE AF (A Collaboration Between Multiple Institutions to Better Investigate Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Use in Atrial Fibrillation), which pooled patient-level data from the 4 pivotal randomized trials of NOAC versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were stroke or systemic embolic events (stroke/SEE) and major bleeding, respectively; secondary outcomes were ischemic stroke/SEE, intracranial hemorrhage, death, and the net clinical outcome (stroke/SEE, major bleeding, or death). Each outcome was examined across BMI and BW. Because few patients had a BMI <18.5 kg/m2 (n=598), the primary analyses were restricted to those with a BMI ≥18.5 kg/m2. RESULTS: Among 58 464 patients, the median BMI was 28.3 (interquartile range, 25.2-32.2) kg/m2, and the median BW was 81.0 (interquartile range, 70.0-94.3) kg. The event probability of stroke/SEE was lower at a higher BMI irrespective of treatment, whereas the probability of major bleeding was lower at a higher BMI with warfarin but relatively unchanged across BMI with NOACs. NOACs reduced stroke/SEE overall (adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.73-0.88]; P<0.001), with a generally consistent effect across BMI (Ptrend across HRs, 0.48). NOACs also reduced major bleeding overall (HRadj, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.82-0.94]; P<0.001), but with attenuation of the benefit at a higher BMI (trend test across BMI [Ptrend], 0.003). The overall treatment effects of NOACs versus warfarin for secondary outcomes were consistent across BMI, with the exception of the net clinical outcome and death. While these outcomes were overall reduced with NOACs (net clinical outcome, HRadj, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.87-0.95]; P<0.001; death, HRadj, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.86-0.97]; P=0.003), these benefits were attenuated at higher BMI (Ptrend, 0.001 and 0.08, respectively). All findings were qualitatively similar when analyzed across BW. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment effect of NOACs versus warfarin in atrial fibrillation is generally consistent for stroke/SEE across the spectrum of BMI and BW, whereas the reduction in major bleeding is attenuated in those with higher BMI or BW. Death and the net clinical outcome are overall reduced with NOACs over warfarin, although there remain uncertainties for these outcomes at a very high BMI and BW.

Development and Validation of the DOAC Score: A Novel Bleeding Risk Prediction Tool for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation on Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulants.

BACKGROUND: Current clinical decision tools for assessing bleeding risk in individuals with atrial fibrillation (AF) have limited performance and were developed for individuals treated with warfarin. This study develops and validates a clinical risk score to personalize estimates of bleeding risk for individuals with atrial fibrillation taking direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs). METHODS: Among individuals taking dabigatran 150 mg twice per day from 44 countries and 951 centers in this secondary analysis of the RE-LY trial (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy), a risk score was developed to determine the comparative risk for bleeding on the basis of covariates derived in a Cox proportional hazards model. The risk prediction model was internally validated with bootstrapping. The model was then further developed in the GARFIELD-AF registry (Global Anticoagulant Registry in the Field-Atrial Fibrillation), with individuals taking dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and apixaban. To determine generalizability in external cohorts and among individuals on different DOACs, the risk prediction model was validated in the COMBINE-AF (A Collaboration Between Multiple Institutions to Better Investigate Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Use in Atrial Fibrillation) pooled clinical trial cohort and the Quebec Régie de l'Assurance Maladie du Québec and Med-Echo Administrative Databases (RAMQ) administrative database. The primary outcome was major bleeding. The risk score, termed the DOAC Score, was compared with the HAS-BLED score. RESULTS: Of the 5684 patients in RE-LY, 386 (6.8%) experienced a major bleeding event, within a median follow-up of 1.74 years. The prediction model had an optimism-corrected C statistic of 0.73 after internal validation with bootstrapping and was well-calibrated based on visual inspection of calibration plots (goodness-of-fit P=0.57). The DOAC Score assigned points for age, creatinine clearance/glomerular filtration rate, underweight status, stroke/transient ischemic attack/embolism history, diabetes, hypertension, antiplatelet use, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory use, liver disease, and bleeding history, with each additional point scored associated with a 48.7% (95% CI, 38.9%-59.3%; P<0.001) increase in major bleeding in RE-LY. The score had superior performance to the HAS-BLED score in RE-LY (C statistic, 0.73 versus 0.60; P for difference <0.001) and among 12 296 individuals in GARFIELD-AF (C statistic, 0.71 versus 0.66; P for difference = 0.025). The DOAC Score had stronger predictive performance than the HAS-BLED score in both validation cohorts, including 25 586 individuals in COMBINE-AF (C statistic, 0.67 versus 0.63; P for difference <0.001) and 11 945 individuals in RAMQ (C statistic, 0.65 versus 0.58; P for difference <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In individuals with atrial fibrillation potentially eligible for DOAC therapy, the DOAC Score can help stratify patients on the basis of expected bleeding risk.

A polygenic risk score predicts atrial fibrillation in cardiovascular disease.

AIMS: Interest in targeted screening programmes for atrial fibrillation (AF) has increased, yet the role of genetics in identifying patients at highest risk of developing AF is unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 36,662 subjects without prior AF were analyzed from four TIMI trials. Subjects were divided into quintiles using a validated polygenic risk score (PRS) for AF. Clinical risk for AF was calculated using the CHARGE-AF model. Kaplan-Meier event rates, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs), C-indices, and net reclassification improvement were used to determine if the addition of the PRS improved prediction compared with clinical risk and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). Over 2.3 years, 1018 new AF cases developed. AF PRS predicted a significant risk gradient for AF with a 40% increased risk per 1-SD increase in PRS [HR: 1.40 (1.32-1.49); P < 0.001]. Those with high AF PRS (top 20%) were more than two-fold more likely to develop AF [HR 2.45 (1.99-3.03), P < 0.001] compared with low PRS (bottom 20%). Furthermore, PRS provided an additional gradient of risk stratification on top of the CHARGE-AF clinical risk score, ranging from a 3-year incidence of 1.3% in patients with low clinical and genetic risk to 8.7% in patients with high clinical and genetic risk. The subgroup of patients with high clinical risk, high PRS, and elevated NT-proBNP had an AF risk of 16.7% over 3 years. The C-index with the CHARGE-AF clinical risk score alone was 0.65, which improved to 0.67 (P < 0.001) with the addition of NT-proBNP, and increased further to 0.70 (P < 0.001) with the addition of the PRS. CONCLUSION: In patients with cardiovascular conditions, AF PRS is a strong independent predictor of incident AF that provides complementary predictive value when added to a validated clinical risk score and NT-proBNP.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Patient-Level Network Meta-Analyses of Randomized Clinical Trials With Interaction Testing by Age and Sex.

BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preferred over warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Meta-analyses using individual patient data offer substantial advantages over study-level data. METHODS: We used individual patient data from the COMBINE AF (A Collaboration Between Multiple Institutions to Better Investigate Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Use in Atrial Fibrillation) database, which includes all patients randomized in the 4 pivotal trials of DOACs versus warfarin in atrial fibrillation (RE-LY [Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy], ROCKET AF [Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation], ARISTOTLE [Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation], and ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 [Effective Anticoagulation With Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48]), to perform network meta-analyses using a stratified Cox model with random effects comparing standard-dose DOAC, lower-dose DOAC, and warfarin. Hazard ratios (HRs [95% CIs]) were calculated for efficacy and safety outcomes. Covariate-by-treatment interaction was estimated for categorical covariates and for age as a continuous covariate, stratified by sex. RESULTS: A total of 71 683 patients were included (29 362 on standard-dose DOAC, 13 049 on lower-dose DOAC, and 29 272 on warfarin). Compared with warfarin, standard-dose DOACs were associated with a significantly lower hazard of stroke or systemic embolism (883/29 312 [3.01%] versus 1080/29 229 [3.69%]; HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.74-0.89]), death (2276/29 312 [7.76%] versus 2460/29 229 [8.42%]; HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.87-0.97]), and intracranial bleeding (184/29 270 [0.63%] versus 409/29 187 [1.40%]; HR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.37-0.56]), but no statistically different hazard of major bleeding (1479/29 270 [5.05%] versus 1733/29 187 [5.94%]; HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.74-1.01]), whereas lower-dose DOACs were associated with no statistically different hazard of stroke or systemic embolism (531/13 049 [3.96%] versus 1080/29 229 [3.69%]; HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.95-1.19]) but a lower hazard of intracranial bleeding (55/12 985 [0.42%] versus 409/29 187 [1.40%]; HR, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.21-0.37]), death (1082/13 049 [8.29%] versus 2460/29 229 [8.42%]; HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.83-0.97]), and major bleeding (564/12 985 [4.34%] versus 1733/29 187 [5.94%]; HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.45-0.88]). Treatment effects for standard- and lower-dose DOACs versus warfarin were consistent across age and sex for stroke or systemic embolism and death, whereas standard-dose DOACs were favored in patients with no history of vitamin K antagonist use (P=0.01) and lower creatinine clearance (P=0.09). For major bleeding, standard-dose DOACs were favored in patients with lower body weight (P=0.02). In the continuous covariate analysis, younger patients derived greater benefits from standard-dose (interaction P=0.02) and lower-dose DOACs (interaction P=0.01) versus warfarin. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with warfarin, DOACs have more favorable efficacy and safety profiles among patients with atrial fibrillation.

Anticoagulation and Antiplatelet Therapy for Prevention of Venous and Arterial Thrombotic Events in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: COVID-PACT.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of prophylactic full-dose anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy in critically ill COVID-19 patients remain uncertain. METHODS: COVID-PACT (Prevention of Arteriovenous Thrombotic Events in Critically-ill COVID-19 Patients Trial) was a multicenter, 2×2 factorial, open-label, randomized-controlled trial with blinded end point adjudication in intensive care unit-level patients with COVID-19. Patients were randomly assigned to a strategy of full-dose anticoagulation or standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation. Absent an indication for antiplatelet therapy, patients were additionally randomly assigned to either clopidogrel or no antiplatelet therapy. The primary efficacy outcome was the hierarchical composite of death attributable to venous or arterial thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, clinically evident deep venous thrombosis, type 1 myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, systemic embolic event or acute limb ischemia, or clinically silent deep venous thrombosis, through hospital discharge or 28 days. The primary efficacy analyses included an unmatched win ratio and time-to-first event analysis while patients were on treatment. The primary safety outcome was fatal or life-threatening bleeding. The secondary safety outcome was moderate to severe bleeding. Recruitment was stopped early in March 2022 (≈50% planned recruitment) because of waning intensive care unit-level COVID-19 rates. RESULTS: At 34 centers in the United States, 390 patients were randomly assigned between anticoagulation strategies and 292 between antiplatelet strategies (382 and 290 in the on-treatment analyses). At randomization, 99% of patients required advanced respiratory therapy, including 15% requiring invasive mechanical ventilation; 40% required invasive ventilation during hospitalization. Comparing anticoagulation strategies, a greater proportion of wins occurred with full-dose anticoagulation (12.3%) versus standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (6.4%; win ratio, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.08-3.55]; P=0.028). Results were consistent in time-to-event analysis for the primary efficacy end point (full-dose versus standard-dose incidence 19/191 [9.9%] versus 29/191 [15.2%]; hazard ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.32-0.99]; P=0.046). The primary safety end point occurred in 4 (2.1%) on full dose and in 1 (0.5%) on standard dose (P=0.19); the secondary safety end point occurred in 15 (7.9%) versus 1 (0.5%; P=0.002). There was no difference in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.56-1.48]; P=0.70). There were no differences in the primary efficacy or safety end points with clopidogrel versus no antiplatelet therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with COVID-19, full-dose anticoagulation, but not clopidogrel, reduced thrombotic complications with an increase in bleeding, driven primarily by transfusions in hemodynamically stable patients, and no apparent excess in mortality. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04409834.

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety Outcomes of Edoxaban in 8040 Women Versus 13 065 Men With Atrial Fibrillation in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Female sex is an independent risk factor for stroke and systemic embolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation. This study aimed to examine the efficacy and safety profile of edoxaban in women versus men. METHODS: The ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial (Effective Anticoagulation with Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48) randomly assigned 21 105 patients (8040 women) with atrial fibrillation and CHADS2 score ≥2 either to a higher-dose edoxaban regimen, a lower-dose edoxaban regimen, or warfarin. The primary end points of the trial were the composite of stroke or systemic embolic events (efficacy), and International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis-defined major bleeding (safety). RESULTS: In comparison with men, women were older, had lower body weight, were more likely to have hypertension and renal dysfunction, but less likely to smoke, drink alcohol, or have diabetes or coronary artery disease. Pretreatment endogenous factor Xa activity was significantly higher in women than in men (92.5% versus 86.1%, P<0.001). Treatment with edoxaban in women resulted in greater peak edoxaban concentration and inhibition of endogenous factor Xa in comparison with men, resulting in similar endogenous factor Xa activity between the sexes 2 to 4 hours after dose. Treatment with higher-dose edoxaban regimen (versus warfarin) resulted in similar reduction in the risk of stroke/systemic embolic events (women: hazard ratio [HR], 0.87 [0.69-1.11], men: HR, 0.87 [0.71-1.06]; P-interaction=0.97) and major bleeding (women: HR, 0.74 [0.59-0.92], men: HR, 0.84 [0.72-0.99]; P-interaction=0.34) in women and men. However, women assigned to higher-dose edoxaban regimen experienced greater reductions in hemorrhagic stroke (HR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.15-0.59] versus HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.46-1.06]), intracranial bleeding (HR, 0.20 [95% CI, 0.10-0.39] versus HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.44-0.89]), and life-threatening or fatal bleeding (HR, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.15-0.42] versus HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.54-0.96]) than men (each P-interaction<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite many differences in baseline characteristics between women and men and higher baseline endogenous factor Xa levels in women, the intensity of anticoagulation achieved with edoxaban between the sexes was similar. Treatment with higher-dose edoxaban regimen resulted in an even greater reduction in hemorrhagic stroke and several serious bleeding outcomes in women than in men, whereas the efficacy profile was similar between sexes.

Clinical Application of a Novel Genetic Risk Score for Ischemic Stroke in Patients With Cardiometabolic Disease.

BACKGROUND: Genome-wide association studies have identified single-nucleotide polymorphisms that are associated with an increased risk of stroke. We sought to determine whether a genetic risk score (GRS) could identify subjects at higher risk for ischemic stroke after accounting for traditional clinical risk factors in 5 trials across the spectrum of cardiometabolic disease. METHODS: Subjects who had consented for genetic testing and who were of European ancestry from the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 (Effective Anticoagulation with Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation), SOLID-TIMI 52 (Stabilization of Plaques Using Darapladib), SAVOR-TIMI 53 (Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus), PEGASUS-TIMI 54 (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin), and FOURIER (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research With PCSK9 Inhibition in Patients With Elevated Risk) trials were included in this analysis. A set of 32 single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with ischemic stroke was used to calculate a GRS in each patient and identify tertiles of genetic risk. A Cox model was used to calculate hazard ratios for ischemic stroke across genetic risk groups, adjusted for clinical risk factors. RESULTS: In 51 288 subjects across the 5 trials, a total of 960 subjects had an ischemic stroke over a median follow-up period of 2.5 years. After adjusting for clinical risk factors, a higher GRS was strongly and independently associated with increased risk for ischemic stroke (P trend=0.009). In comparison with individuals in the lowest third of the GRS, individuals in the middle and top tertiles of the GRS had adjusted hazard ratios of 1.15 (95% CI, 0.98-1.36) and 1.24 (95% CI 1.05-1.45) for ischemic stroke, respectively. Stratification into subgroups revealed that the performance of the GRS appeared stronger in the primary prevention cohort with an adjusted hazard ratio for the top versus lowest tertile of 1.27 (95% CI, 1.04-1.53), in comparison with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.06 (95% CI, 0.81-1.41) in subjects with previous stroke. In an exploratory analysis of patients with atrial fibrillation and CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2, high genetic risk conferred a 4-fold higher risk of stroke and an absolute risk equivalent to those with CHA2DS2-VASc score of 3. CONCLUSIONS: Across a broad spectrum of subjects with cardiometabolic disease, a 32-single-nucleotide polymorphism GRS was a strong, independent predictor of ischemic stroke. In patients with atrial fibrillation but lower CHA2DS2-VASc scores, the GRS identified patients with risk comparable to those with higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores.

Dapagliflozin and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular safety profile of dapagliflozin, a selective inhibitor of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 that promotes glucosuria in patients with type 2 diabetes, is undefined. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes who had or were at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease to receive either dapagliflozin or placebo. The primary safety outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke. The primary efficacy outcomes were MACE and a composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure. Secondary efficacy outcomes were a renal composite (≥40% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate to <60 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area, new end-stage renal disease, or death from renal or cardiovascular causes) and death from any cause. RESULTS: We evaluated 17,160 patients, including 10,186 without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, who were followed for a median of 4.2 years. In the primary safety outcome analysis, dapagliflozin met the prespecified criterion for noninferiority to placebo with respect to MACE (upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval [CI], <1.3; P<0.001 for noninferiority). In the two primary efficacy analyses, dapagliflozin did not result in a lower rate of MACE (8.8% in the dapagliflozin group and 9.4% in the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.03; P=0.17) but did result in a lower rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (4.9% vs. 5.8%; hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.95; P=0.005), which reflected a lower rate of hospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.88); there was no between-group difference in cardiovascular death (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.17). A renal event occurred in 4.3% in the dapagliflozin group and in 5.6% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.87), and death from any cause occurred in 6.2% and 6.6%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.04). Diabetic ketoacidosis was more common with dapagliflozin than with placebo (0.3% vs. 0.1%, P=0.02), as was the rate of genital infections that led to discontinuation of the regimen or that were considered to be serious adverse events (0.9% vs. 0.1%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes who had or were at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, treatment with dapagliflozin did not result in a higher or lower rate of MACE than placebo but did result in a lower rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, a finding that reflects a lower rate of hospitalization for heart failure. (Funded by AstraZeneca; DECLARE-TIMI 58 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01730534 .).

Edoxaban versus Warfarin in high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation: A comprehensive analysis of high-risk subgroups.

BACKGROUND: To compare the efficacy and safety of edoxaban vs warfarin in high-risk subgroups. METHODS: ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 was a multicenter randomized, double-blind, controlled trial in 21,105 patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) within 12 months and CHADS2 score >2 randomized to higher-dose edoxaban regimen (HDER) 60 mg/reduced 30 mg, lower-dose edoxaban regimen (LDER) 30 mg/reduced 15 mg, or warfarin, and followed for 2.8 years (median). The primary outcome for this analysis was the net clinical outcome (NCO), a composite of stroke/systemic embolism events, major bleeding, or death. Multivariable risk-stratification analysis was used to categorize patients by the number of high-risk features. RESULTS: The annualized NCO rates in the warfarin arm were highest in patients with malignancy (19.2%), increased fall risk (14.0%), and very-low body weight (13.5%). The NCO rates increased with the numbers of high-risk factors in the warfarin arm: 4.5%, 7.2%, 9.9% and 14.6% in patients with 0 to 1, 2, 3, and >4 risk factors, respectively (Ptrend <0.001). Versus warfarin, HDER was associated with significant reductions of NCO in most of the subgroups: elderly, patients with moderate renal dysfunction, prior stroke/TIA, of Asian race, very-low body weight, concomitant single antiplatelet therapy, and VKA-naïve. With more high-risk features (0->4+), the absolute risk reductions favoring edoxaban over warfarin increased: 0.3%->2.0% for HDER; 0.4%->3.4% for LDER vs warfarin (P = .065 and P < .001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: While underuse of anticoagulation in high-risk patients with AF remains common, substitution of effective and safer alternatives to warfarin, such as edoxaban, represents an opportunity to improve clinical outcomes.

LEGACY: Phase 2a Trial to Evaluate the Safety, Pharmacokinetics, and Pharmacodynamic Effects of the Anti-EL (Endothelial Lipase) Antibody MEDI5884 in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease.

OBJECTIVE: Functional HDL (high-density lipoprotein) particles that facilitate cholesterol efflux may be cardioprotective. EL (endothelial lipase) hydrolyzes phospholipids promoting catabolism of HDL and subsequent renal excretion. MEDI5884 is a selective, humanized, monoclonal, EL-neutralizing antibody. We sought to determine the safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamic effects of multiple doses of MEDI5884 in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Approach and Results: LEGACY was a phase 2a, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-design trial that randomized 132 patients with stable coronary artery disease receiving high-intensity statin therapy to 3 monthly doses of 1 of 5 dose levels of MEDI5884 (50, 100, 200, 350, or 500 mg SC) or matching placebo. The primary end point was the safety and tolerability of MEDI5884 through the end of the study (day 151). Additional end points included change in HDL cholesterol and cholesterol efflux from baseline to day 91, hepatic uptake of cholesterol at day 91, changes in various other lipid parameters. The incidence of adverse events was similar between the placebo and MEDI5884 groups. In a dose-dependent manner, MEDI5884 increased HDL cholesterol up to 51.4% (P<0.0001) and global cholesterol efflux up to 26.2% ([95% CI, 14.3-38.0] P<0.0001). MEDI5884 increased HDL particle number up to 14.4%. At the highest dose tested, an increase in LDL (low-density lipoprotein) cholesterol up to 28.7% (P<0.0001) and apoB (apolipoprotein B) up to 13.1% (P=0.04) was observed with MEDI5884. However, at the potential target doses for future studies, there was no meaningful increase in LDL cholesterol or apoB. CONCLUSIONS: Inhibition of EL by MEDI5884 increases the quantity and quality of functional HDL in patients with stable coronary artery disease on high-intensity statin therapy without an adverse safety signal at the likely dose to be used. These data support further clinical investigation. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03351738.

Evaluation of the atrial fibrillation better care pathway in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial.

AIMS: The Atrial fibrillation Better Care (ABC) pathway is endorsed by guidelines to improve care of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, whether the benefit of ABC pathway-concordant care is consistent across anticoagulants remains unclear. We assessed the association between ABC-concordant care and outcomes in this post hoc analysis from the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial, which was reported prior to the initial description of the ABC pathway. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients were retrospectively classified as receiving ABC-concordant care based on optimal anticoagulation, adequate rate control, management of co-morbidities and lifestyle measures. Associations between ABC-concordance and outcomes were assessed with adjustment for components of the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores. Of 20 926 patients, 7915 (37.8%) satisfied criteria of ABC-concordant care, which was associated with significantly lower incidence of stroke or systemic embolic event [stroke/SEE: hazard ratio (HRadj): 0.54; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.47-0.63], major bleeding (HRadj 0.66; 95% CI: 0.58-0.75), major adverse cardiac events (HRadj 0.53; 95% CI: 0.48-0.58), primary net clinical outcome (composite of stroke/SEE, major bleeding or death; HRadj 0.61; 95% CI: 0.56-0.65), cardiovascular (CV) hospitalization (HRadj 0.78; 95% CI: 0.74-0.83), CV death (HRadj 0.52; 95% CI: 0.46-0.58), and all-cause mortality (HRadj 0.56; 95% CI: 0.51-0.62), P < 0.001 for each. These associations were qualitatively consistent for both edoxaban and warfarin and across patient subgroups. CONCLUSION: Atrial fibrillation Better Care pathway-concordant care is associated with reductions across multiple CV endpoints and all-cause mortality, with benefit in edoxaban- and warfarin-treated patients and across patient subgroups. Increasing implementation of ABC-concordant care may improve clinical outcomes of patients with AF irrespective of anticoagulant.

Serial assessment of biomarkers and the risk of stroke or systemic embolism and bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial.

AIMS: We investigated whether patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) demonstrate detectable changes in biomarkers including high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT), N-terminal B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15) over 12 months and whether such changes from baseline to 12 months are associated with the subsequent risk of stroke or systemic embolic events (S/SEE) and bleeding. METHODS AND RESULTS: ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 was a randomized trial of the oral factor Xa inhibitor edoxaban in patients with AF and a CHADS2 score of ≥2. We performed a nested prospective biomarker study in 6308 patients, analysing hsTnT, NT-proBNP, and GDF-15 at baseline and 12 months. hsTnT was dynamic in 46.9% (≥2 ng/L change), NT-proBNP in 51.9% (≥200 pg/mL change), GDF-15 in 45.6% (≥300 pg/mL change) during 12 months. In a Cox regression model, upward changes in log2-transformed hsTnT and NT-proBNP were associated with increased risk of S/SEE [adjusted hazard ratio (adj-HR) 1.74; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36-2.23 and adj-HR 1.27; 95% CI 1.07-1.50, respectively] and log2-transformed GDF-15 with bleeding (adj-HR 1.40; 95% CI 1.02-1.92). Reassessment of ABC-stroke (age, prior stroke/transient ischaemic attack, hsTnT, and NT-proBNP) and ABC-bleeding (age, prior bleeding, haemoglobin, hsTnT, and GDF-15) risk scores at 12 months accurately reclassified a significant proportion of patients compared with their baseline risk [net reclassification improvement (NRI) 0.50; 95% CI 0.36-0.65; NRI 0.42; 95% CI 0.33-0.51, respectively]. CONCLUSION: Serial assessment of hsTnT, NT-proBNP, and GDF-15 revealed that a substantial proportion of patients with AF had dynamic values. Greater increases in these biomarkers measured over 1 year are associated with important clinical outcomes in anticoagulated patients with AF.

The Effect of PCSK9 (Proprotein Convertase Subtilisin/Kexin Type 9) Inhibition on the Risk of Venous Thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between cholesterol levels and risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is uncertain. We set out to determine the effect of PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibition on the risk of VTE, explore potential mechanisms, and examine the efficacy in subgroups with clinically and genetically defined risk. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of the FOURIER trial (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research With PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk) testing whether evolocumab reduces the risk of VTE events (deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism). Data from FOURIER and ODYSSEY OUTCOMES (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment with Alirocumab) were then combined in a meta-analysis to assess the class effect of PCSK9 inhibition on the risk of VTE. We also analyzed baseline lipids in FOURIER to investigate potential mechanisms explaining the reduction in VTE with evolocumab. Last, an exploratory genetic analysis was performed in FOURIER to determine whether a VTE polygenic risk score could identify high-risk patients who would derive the greatest VTE reduction from evolocumab. RESULTS: In FOURIER, the hazard ratio (HR) for VTE with evolocumab was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.50-1.00; P=0.05), with no effect in the 1st year (HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.57-1.62]) but a 46% reduction (HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.33-0.88]; P=0.014) beyond 1 year. A meta-analysis of FOURIER and ODYSSEY OUTCOMES demonstrated a 31% relative risk reduction in VTE with PCSK9 inhibition (HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.53-0.90]; P=0.007). There was no relation between baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and magnitude of VTE risk reduction. In contrast, in patients with higher baseline lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) levels, evolocumab reduced Lp(a) by 33 nmol/L and risk of VTE by 48% (HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.30-0.89]; P=0.017), whereas, in patients with lower baseline Lp(a) levels, evolocumab reduced Lp(a) by only 7 nmol/L and had no effect on VTE risk (Pinteraction 0.087 for HR; Pheterogeneity 0.037 for absolute risk reduction). Modeled as a continuous variable, there was a significant interaction between baseline Lp(a) concentration and magnitude of VTE risk reduction (Pinteraction=0.04). A polygenic risk score identified patients who were at >2-fold increased risk for VTE and who derived greater relative (Pinteraction=0.04) and absolute VTE reduction (Pheterogeneity=0.009) in comparison with those without high genetic risk. CONCLUSIONS: PCSK9 inhibition significantly reduces the risk of VTE. Lp(a) reduction may be an important mediator of this effect, a finding of particular interest given the ongoing development of potent Lp(a) inhibitors.

Predicting Benefit From Evolocumab Therapy in Patients With Atherosclerotic Disease Using a Genetic Risk Score: Results From the FOURIER Trial.

BACKGROUND: The ability of a genetic risk score to predict risk in established cardiovascular disease and identify individuals who derive greater benefit from PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibition has not been established. METHODS: We studied 14 298 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease from the FOURIER trial (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Researh With PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk). A 27-single-nucleotide polymorphism genetic risk score defined low (quintile 1), intermediate (quintiles 2-4), and high (quintile 5) genetic risk. Patients were also categorized by major atherosclerotic risk factors including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥100 mg/dl, and smoking; multiple (≥2) risk factors was considered high clinical risk. Outcomes consisted of major coronary events (coronary heart death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization) and major vascular events (major coronary events and ischemic stroke). Median follow-up was 2.3 years. RESULTS: After we adjusted for clinical factors, the genetic risk score was associated with risk for both major vascular events (Ptrend=0.005) and major coronary events (Ptrend<0.0001). Individuals with intermediate and high genetic risk scores had 1.23- and 1.65-fold increased hazard for major coronary events, respectively. Elevated genetic risk was additive to major atherosclerotic risk factors and identified patients more likely to benefit from evolocumab. There was no benefit for major vascular events in patients without multiple clinical risk factors or high genetic risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02; absolute risk reduction [ARR], -0.2%, P=0.86). In contrast, there was a 13% relative risk reduction (HR, 0.87 [0.75-0.998], P=0.047) and a 1.4% ARR in patients with multiple clinical risk factors but without high genetic risk and a 31% relative risk reduction (HR, 0.69 [0.55-0.86], P=0.0012), and 4.0% ARR in patients with high genetic risk, irrespective of clinical risk (Ptrend for HR=0.017, ARR Ptrend=0.004). Patients with high genetic risk who received evolocumab had event rates similar to patients with a low burden of both genetic and clinical risk. CONCLUSION: Patients without multiple clinical risk factors or high genetic risk had a low event rate and did not appear to derive benefit from evolocumab over 2.3 years. Conversely, patients with multiple clinical risk factors but without high genetic risk had intermediate risk and intermediate risk reduction. Patients with high genetic risk, regardless of clinical risk, had a high event rate and derived the greatest relative and absolute benefit from evolocumab, which mitigated this risk.

Cardiovascular Safety of Lorcaserin in Overweight or Obese Patients.

BACKGROUND: Lorcaserin, a selective serotonin 2C receptor agonist that modulates appetite, has proven efficacy for weight management in overweight or obese patients. The cardiovascular safety and efficacy of lorcaserin are undefined. METHODS: We randomly assigned 12,000 overweight or obese patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or multiple cardiovascular risk factors to receive either lorcaserin (10 mg twice daily) or placebo. The primary safety outcome of major cardiovascular events (a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) was assessed at an interim analysis to exclude a noninferiority boundary of 1.4. If noninferiority was met, the primary cardiovascular efficacy outcome (a composite of major cardiovascular events, heart failure, hospitalization for unstable angina, or coronary revascularization [extended major cardiovascular events]) was assessed for superiority at the end of the trial. RESULTS: At 1 year, weight loss of at least 5% had occurred in 1986 of 5135 patients (38.7%) in the lorcaserin group and in 883 of 5083 (17.4%) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 3.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.74 to 3.30; P<0.001). Patients in the lorcaserin group had slightly better values with respect to cardiac risk factors (including blood pressure, heart rate, glycemic control, and lipids) than those in the placebo group. During a median follow-up of 3.3 years, the rate of the primary safety outcome was 2.0% per year in the lorcaserin group and 2.1% per year in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.14; P<0.001 for noninferiority); the rate of extended major cardiovascular events was 4.1% per year and 4.2% per year, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.07; P=0.55). Adverse events of special interest were uncommon, and the rates were generally similar in the two groups, except for a higher number of patients with serious hypoglycemia in the lorcaserin group (13 vs. 4, P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In a high-risk population of overweight or obese patients, lorcaserin facilitated sustained weight loss without a higher rate of major cardiovascular events than that with placebo. (Funded by Eisai; CAMELLIA-TIMI 61 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02019264 .).

Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation in relation to the risk of stroke: A secondary analysis of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 study.

INTRODUCTION: The efficacy and safety of the oral factor Xa inhibitor edoxaban compared to warfarin stratified by CHA2DS2VASc scores have not been described. METHODS: The ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial randomized patients with atrial fibrillation to once-daily edoxaban or warfarin. We classified patients based on CHA2DS2VASc score and compared pharmacokinetics (edoxaban concentration), pharmacodynamics (anti-factor Xa [FXa] with edoxaban, time-in-therapeutic range for warfarin), efficacy (stroke or systemic embolism [SSE]), safety (major bleeding [MB], intracranial hemorrhage), and cardiovascular mortality, for the approved edoxaban regimen vs warfarin. RESULTS: The distribution CHA2DS2VASc score were:≤3, N = 4159 (29.6%); 4, N = 4066 (28.9%); 5, N = 3165 (22.5%); and ≥6, N = 2681 (19.1%). Increasing rates of SSE (1.05 to 2.99%/year) and MB (2.27 to 4.66%/year) were observed in the warfarin arm as the CHA2DS2VASc score increased. The hazard ratios per unit increase of CHA2DS2VASc score were 1.29 (1.21-1.38) and 1.26 (1.17-1.36) for SSE, and 1.20 (1.13-1.27) and 1.19 (1.12-1.27) for MB, with warfarin and edoxaban, respectively. Time-in-therapeutic range in warfarin-treated patients was similar and high (median 68%-69%) across CHA2DS2VASc scores, whereas edoxaban trough concentration, exogenous anti-FXa activity and %inhibition of endogenous FXa were higher at increasing CHA2DS2VASc scores. Edoxaban reduced SSE, MB, intracranial hemorrhage, and cardiovascular mortality vs warfarin to a similar degree across the range of CHA2DS2VASc scores (P-int = 0.90, 0.96, 0.21, and 0.37, respectively). Because of higher event rates the number of events prevented with edoxaban tended to be greater in patients with higher CHA2DS2VASc scores. CONCLUSION: The benefit and safety of edoxaban versus warfarin is maintained across CHA2DS2VASc scores. While the relative risk reductions remain similar, edoxaban provides incrementally larger absolute reductions in outcomes over warfarin in patients with higher CHA2DS2VASc scores.

Individual Patient Data from the Pivotal Randomized Controlled Trials of Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation (COMBINE AF): Design and Rationale: From the COMBINE AF (A Collaboration between Multiple institutions to Better Investigate Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant use in Atrial Fibrillation) Investigators.

BACKGROUND: Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are the preferred class of medications for prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation unless contraindications exist. Five large, international, randomized, controlled trials of NOACs versus either warfarin or aspirin have been completed to date. DESIGN: COMBINE AF incorporates de-identified individual patient data from 77,282 patients with atrial fibrillation at risk for stroke randomized to NOAC, warfarin, or aspirin from 5 pivotal randomized controlled trials. All patients randomized in the constituent trials are included. Variables common to ≥3 of the constituent trials are included in the master database. Individual trial data sets from the 4 coordinating centers were combined at the Duke Clinical Research Institute. The final database will be securely shared with the 4 academic coordinating centers. The combined master database will be used to perform statistical analyses aimed at better understanding underlying risk factors and outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation treated with oral anticoagulants, with a special focus on patient subgroups and uncommon outcomes. The initial analysis from COMBINE AF will be a network meta-analysis investigating the relative efficacy and safety of pooled higher-dose NOACs versus pooled lower-dose NOACs versus warfarin with respect to multiple time-to-event efficacy and safety outcomes. COMBINE AF is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020178771). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, COMBINE AF provides a rich and robust database consisting of individual patient data and will offer opportunities to investigate oral anticoagulants across many patient subgroups. Data sharing and collaboration across academic institutions and investigators will serve as overarching themes.

Biomarkers for Risk Assessment in Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with an increased risk of thromboembolism, which can be significantly reduced with anticoagulant treatment. Key goals in the clinical management of AF are the identification of patients at high risk for developing AF and accurate stratification of the risk of stroke and systemic embolic events (S/SEE) as well as treatment-related major bleeding. CONTENT: In this review, we describe the expanding evidence regarding the use of circulating biomarkers for predicting the risks of both incident AF and its clinically important complications of S/SEE and treatment-related major bleeding. We also review emerging biomarker-based scores for assessing these risks. SUMMARY: Patients with AF undergo progressive cardiac structural remodeling, which may precede the onset of the arrhythmia. Abnormal concentrations of circulating biomarkers reflecting the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms of hemodynamic stress (i.e., natriuretic peptides), inflammation (i.e., C-reactive protein), and myocardial fibrosis identify patients at higher risk of developing AF. Circulating biomarkers can also be used to identify patients with AF who are at greatest risk for developing S/SEE or major bleeding. In particular, biomarkers of hemodynamic stress, myocardial injury (i.e., cardiac troponin), and coagulation activity (i.e., D-dimer) are key indicators of thromboembolic risk, and cardiac troponin and growth-differentiation factor-15 are strongly associated with risk of anticoagulant-related major bleeding. The biomarker-based age, biomarker, clinical history (ABC)-stroke and ABC-bleeding risk scores improve risk stratification for S/SEE and major bleeding, respectively, when compared with traditional clinical risk scores like the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores.