Effect of the P-Selectin Inhibitor Crizanlizumab on Survival Free of Organ Support in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has been associated with endothelial injury, resultant microvascular inflammation and thrombosis. Activated endothelial cells release and express P-selectin and von Willebrand factor, both of which are elevated in severe COVID-19 and may be implicated in the disease pathophysiology. We hypothesized that crizanlizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody to P-selectin, would reduce morbidity and death in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. METHODS: An international, adaptive, randomized controlled platform trial, funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, randomly assigned 422 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with moderate or severe illness to receive either a single infusion of the P-selectin inhibitor crizanlizumab (at a dose of 5 mg/kg) plus standard of care or standard of care alone in an open-label 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale consisting of the number of days alive free of organ support through the first 21 days after trial entry. RESULTS: The study was stopped for futility by the data safety monitoring committee. Among 421 randomized patients with known 21-day outcomes, 163 patients (77%) randomized to the crizanlizumab plus standard-of-care arm did not require any respiratory or cardiovascular organ support compared with 169 (80%) in the standard-of-care-alone arm. The adjusted odds ratio for the effect of crizanlizumab on organ support-free days was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.43-1.16), where an odds ratio >1 indicates treatment benefit, yielding a posterior probability of futility (odds ratio <1.2) of 98% and a posterior probability of inferiority (odds ratio <1.0) of 91%. Overall, there were 37 deaths (17.5%) in the crizanlizumab arm and 27 deaths (12.8%) in the standard-of-care arm (hazard ratio, 1.33 [95% CrI, 0.85-2.21]; [probability of hazard ratio>1] = 0.879). CONCLUSIONS: Crizanlizumab, a P-selectin inhibitor, did not result in improvement in organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04505774.

Survival After Invasive or Conservative Management of Stable Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: The ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) compared an initial invasive versus an initial conservative management strategy for patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, with no major difference in most outcomes during a median of 3.2 years. Extended follow-up for mortality is ongoing. METHODS: ISCHEMIA participants were randomized to an initial invasive strategy added to guideline-directed medical therapy or a conservative strategy. Patients with moderate or severe ischemia, ejection fraction ≥35%, and no recent acute coronary syndromes were included. Those with an unacceptable level of angina were excluded. Extended follow-up for vital status is being conducted by sites or through central death index search. Data obtained through December 2021 are included in this interim report. We analyzed all-cause, cardiovascular, and noncardiovascular mortality by randomized strategy, using nonparametric cumulative incidence estimators, Cox regression models, and Bayesian methods. Undetermined deaths were classified as cardiovascular as prespecified in the trial protocol. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics for 5179 original ISCHEMIA trial participants included median age 65 years, 23% women, 16% Hispanic, 4% Black, 42% with diabetes, and median ejection fraction 0.60. A total of 557 deaths accrued during a median follow-up of 5.7 years, with 268 of these added in the extended follow-up phase. This included a total of 343 cardiovascular deaths, 192 noncardiovascular deaths, and 22 unclassified deaths. All-cause mortality was not different between randomized treatment groups (7-year rate, 12.7% in invasive strategy, 13.4% in conservative strategy; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.85-1.18]). There was a lower 7-year rate cardiovascular mortality (6.4% versus 8.6%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.63-0.96]) with an initial invasive strategy but a higher 7-year rate of noncardiovascular mortality (5.6% versus 4.4%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.08-1.91]) compared with the conservative strategy. No heterogeneity of treatment effect was evident in prespecified subgroups, including multivessel coronary disease. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in all-cause mortality with an initial invasive strategy compared with an initial conservative strategy, but there was lower risk of cardiovascular mortality and higher risk of noncardiovascular mortality with an initial invasive strategy during a median follow-up of 5.7 years. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04894877.

Therapeutic Anticoagulation with Heparin in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19. METHODS: In an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized clinical trial, critically ill patients with severe Covid-19 were randomly assigned to a pragmatically defined regimen of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in accordance with local usual care. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. RESULTS: The trial was stopped when the prespecified criterion for futility was met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Data on the primary outcome were available for 1098 patients (534 assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and 564 assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis). The median value for organ support-free days was 1 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and was 4 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis (adjusted proportional odds ratio, 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67 to 1.03; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio <1.2], 99.9%). The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the two groups (62.7% and 64.5%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.84; 95% credible interval, 0.64 to 1.11). Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% of the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 2.3% of those assigned to usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin did not result in a greater probability of survival to hospital discharge or a greater number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support than did usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. (REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4a, and ATTACC ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT04372589.).

Therapeutic Anticoagulation with Heparin in Noncritically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to the risk of death and complications among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in noncritically ill patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19. METHODS: In this open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and who were not critically ill (which was defined as an absence of critical care-level organ support at enrollment) to receive pragmatically defined regimens of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. This outcome was evaluated with the use of a Bayesian statistical model for all patients and according to the baseline d-dimer level. RESULTS: The trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were met. Among 2219 patients in the final analysis, the probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation increased organ support-free days as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 98.6% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; 95% credible interval, 1.03 to 1.58). The adjusted absolute between-group difference in survival until hospital discharge without organ support favoring therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was 4.0 percentage points (95% credible interval, 0.5 to 7.2). The final probability of the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation over usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 97.3% in the high d-dimer cohort, 92.9% in the low d-dimer cohort, and 97.3% in the unknown d-dimer cohort. Major bleeding occurred in 1.9% of the patients receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 0.9% of those receiving thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In noncritically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis. (ATTACC, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04372589, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT02735707.).

Coronary Arterial Function and Disease in Women With No Obstructive Coronary Arteries.

Ischemic heart disease (IHD) is the leading cause of mortality in women. While traditional cardiovascular risk factors play an important role in the development of IHD in women, women may experience sex-specific IHD risk factors and pathophysiology, and thus female-specific risk stratification is needed for IHD prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. Emerging data from the past 2 decades have significantly improved the understanding of IHD in women, including mechanisms of ischemia with no obstructive coronary arteries and myocardial infarction with no obstructive coronary arteries. Despite this progress, sex differences in IHD outcomes persist, particularly in young women. This review highlights the contemporary understanding of coronary arterial function and disease in women with no obstructive coronary arteries, including coronary anatomy and physiology, mechanisms of ischemia with no obstructive coronary arteries and myocardial infarction with no obstructive coronary arteries, noninvasive and invasive diagnostic strategies, and management of IHD.

Comparison of Bayesian and frequentist monitoring boundaries motivated by the Multiplatform Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic highlighted the need to conduct efficient randomized clinical trials with interim monitoring guidelines for efficacy and futility. Several randomized coronavirus disease 2019 trials, including the Multiplatform Randomized Clinical Trial (mpRCT), used Bayesian guidelines with the belief that they would lead to quicker efficacy or futility decisions than traditional "frequentist" guidelines, such as spending functions and conditional power. We explore this belief using an intuitive interpretation of Bayesian methods as translating prior opinion about the treatment effect into imaginary prior data. These imaginary observations are then combined with actual observations from the trial to make conclusions. Using this approach, we show that the Bayesian efficacy boundary used in mpRCT is actually quite similar to the frequentist Pocock boundary. METHODS: The mpRCT's efficacy monitoring guideline considered stopping if, given the observed data, there was greater than 99% probability that the treatment was effective (odds ratio greater than 1). The mpRCT's futility monitoring guideline considered stopping if, given the observed data, there was greater than 95% probability that the treatment was less than 20% effective (odds ratio less than 1.2). The mpRCT used a normal prior distribution that can be thought of as supplementing the actual patients' data with imaginary patients' data. We explore the effects of varying probability thresholds and the prior-to-actual patient ratio in the mpRCT and compare the resulting Bayesian efficacy monitoring guidelines to the well-known frequentist Pocock and O'Brien-Fleming efficacy guidelines. We also contrast Bayesian futility guidelines with a more traditional 20% conditional power futility guideline. RESULTS: A Bayesian efficacy and futility monitoring boundary using a neutral, weakly informative prior distribution and a fixed probability threshold at all interim analyses is more aggressive than the commonly used O'Brien-Fleming efficacy boundary coupled with a 20% conditional power threshold for futility. The trade-off is that more aggressive boundaries tend to stop trials earlier, but incur a loss of power. Interestingly, the Bayesian efficacy boundary with 99% probability threshold is very similar to the classic Pocock efficacy boundary. CONCLUSIONS: In a pandemic where quickly weeding out ineffective treatments and identifying effective treatments is paramount, aggressive monitoring may be preferred to conservative approaches, such as the O'Brien-Fleming boundary. This can be accomplished with either Bayesian or frequentist methods.

Comprehensive Quality-of-Life Outcomes With Invasive Versus Conservative Management of Chronic Coronary Disease in ISCHEMIA.

BACKGROUND: ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) compared an initial invasive treatment strategy (INV) with an initial conservative strategy in 5179 participants with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia. The ISCHEMIA research program included a comprehensive quality-of-life (QOL) substudy. METHODS: In 1819 participants (907 INV, 912 conservative strategy), we collected a battery of disease-specific and generic QOL instruments by structured interviews at baseline; at 3, 12, 24, and 36 months postrandomization; and at study closeout. Assessments included angina-related QOL (19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire), generic health status (EQ-5D), depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-8), and, for North American patients, cardiac functional status (Duke Activity Status Index). RESULTS: Median age was 67 years, 19.2% were female, and 15.9% were non-White. The estimated mean difference for the 19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire Summary score favored INV (1.4 points [95% CI, 0.2-2.5] over all follow-up). No differences were observed in patients with rare/absent baseline angina (SAQ Angina Frequency score >80). Among patients with more frequent angina at baseline (SAQ Angina Frequency score <80, 744 patients, 41%), those randomly assigned to INV had a mean 3.7-point higher 19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire Summary score than conservative strategy (95% CI, 1.6-5.8) with consistent effects across SAQ subscales: Physical Limitations 3.2 points (95% CI, 0.2-6.1), Angina Frequency 3.2 points (95% CI, 1.2-5.1), Quality of Life/Health Perceptions 5.3 points (95% CI, 2.8-7.8). For the Duke Activity Status Index, no difference was estimated overall by treatment, but in patients with baseline SAQ Angina Frequency scores <80, Duke Activity Status Index scores were higher for INV (3.2 points [95% CI, 0.6-5.7]), whereas patients with rare/absent baseline angina showed no treatment-related differences. Moderate to severe depression was infrequent at randomization (11.5%-12.8%) and was unaffected by treatment assignment. CONCLUSIONS: In the ISCHEMIA comprehensive QOL substudy, patients with more frequent baseline angina reported greater improvements in the symptom, physical functioning, and psychological well-being dimensions of QOL when treated with an invasive strategy, whereas patients who had rare/absent angina at baseline reported no consistent treatment-related QOL differences. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Health Status after Invasive or Conservative Care in Coronary and Advanced Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: In the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, the primary analysis showed no significant difference in the risk of death or myocardial infarction with initial angiography and revascularization plus guideline-based medical therapy (invasive strategy) as compared with guideline-based medical therapy alone (conservative strategy) in participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease (an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 or receipt of dialysis). A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status. METHODS: We assessed health status with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) before randomization and at 1.5, 3, and 6 months and every 6 months thereafter. The primary outcome of this analysis was the SAQ Summary score (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating less frequent angina and better function and quality of life). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate the treatment effect with the invasive strategy. RESULTS: Health status was assessed in 705 of 777 participants. Nearly half the participants (49%) had had no angina during the month before randomization. At 3 months, the estimated mean difference between the invasive-strategy group and the conservative-strategy group in the SAQ Summary score was 2.1 points (95% credible interval, -0.4 to 4.6), a result that favored the invasive strategy. The mean difference in score at 3 months was largest among participants with daily or weekly angina at baseline (10.1 points; 95% credible interval, 0.0 to 19.9), smaller among those with monthly angina at baseline (2.2 points; 95% credible interval, -2.0 to 6.2), and nearly absent among those without angina at baseline (0.6 points; 95% credible interval, -1.9 to 3.3). By 6 months, the between-group difference in the overall trial population was attenuated (0.5 points; 95% credible interval, -2.2 to 3.4). CONCLUSIONS: Participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease did not have substantial or sustained benefits with regard to angina-related health status with an initially invasive strategy as compared with a conservative strategy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ISCHEMIA-CKD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01985360.).

Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Inhibitors and Risk of Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: There is concern about the potential of an increased risk related to medications that act on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in patients exposed to coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), because the viral receptor is angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). METHODS: We assessed the relation between previous treatment with ACE inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, beta-blockers, calcium-channel blockers, or thiazide diuretics and the likelihood of a positive or negative result on Covid-19 testing as well as the likelihood of severe illness (defined as intensive care, mechanical ventilation, or death) among patients who tested positive. Using Bayesian methods, we compared outcomes in patients who had been treated with these medications and in untreated patients, overall and in those with hypertension, after propensity-score matching for receipt of each medication class. A difference of at least 10 percentage points was prespecified as a substantial difference. RESULTS: Among 12,594 patients who were tested for Covid-19, a total of 5894 (46.8%) were positive; 1002 of these patients (17.0%) had severe illness. A history of hypertension was present in 4357 patients (34.6%), among whom 2573 (59.1%) had a positive test; 634 of these patients (24.6%) had severe illness. There was no association between any single medication class and an increased likelihood of a positive test. None of the medications examined was associated with a substantial increase in the risk of severe illness among patients who tested positive. CONCLUSIONS: We found no substantial increase in the likelihood of a positive test for Covid-19 or in the risk of severe Covid-19 among patients who tested positive in association with five common classes of antihypertensive medications.

Health-Status Outcomes with Invasive or Conservative Care in Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS: We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS: At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS: In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522.).

Management of Coronary Disease in Patients with Advanced Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials that have assessed the effect of revascularization in patients with stable coronary disease have routinely excluded those with advanced chronic kidney disease. METHODS: We randomly assigned 777 patients with advanced kidney disease and moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing to be treated with an initial invasive strategy consisting of coronary angiography and revascularization (if appropriate) added to medical therapy or an initial conservative strategy consisting of medical therapy alone and angiography reserved for those in whom medical therapy had failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. A key secondary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 2.2 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 123 patients in the invasive-strategy group and in 129 patients in the conservative-strategy group (estimated 3-year event rate, 36.4% vs. 36.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.29; P = 0.95). Results for the key secondary outcome were similar (38.5% vs. 39.7%; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.29). The invasive strategy was associated with a higher incidence of stroke than the conservative strategy (hazard ratio, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.52 to 9.32; P = 0.004) and with a higher incidence of death or initiation of dialysis (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.11; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable coronary disease, advanced chronic kidney disease, and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA-CKD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01985360.).

Initial Invasive or Conservative Strategy for Stable Coronary Disease.

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

Design and pilot implementation for the BETTER CARE-HF trial: A pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial comparing two targeted approaches to ambulatory clinical decision support for cardiologists.

BACKGROUND: Beart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. However, shortfalls in prescribing of proven therapies, particularly mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) therapy, account for several thousand preventable deaths per year nationwide. Electronic clinical decision support (CDS) is a potential low-cost and scalable solution to improve prescribing of therapies. However, the optimal timing and format of CDS tools is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We developed two targeted CDS tools to inform cardiologists of gaps in MRA therapy for patients with HFrEF and without contraindication to MRA therapy: (1) an alert that notifies cardiologists at the time of patient visit, and (2) an automated electronic message that allows for review between visits. We designed these tools using an established CDS framework and findings from semistructured interviews with cardiologists. We then pilot tested both CDS tools (n = 596 patients) and further enhanced them based on additional semistructured interviews (n = 11 cardiologists). The message was modified to reduce the number of patients listed, include future visits, and list date of next visit. The alert was modified to improve noticeability, reduce extraneous information on guidelines, and include key information on contraindications. CONCLUSIONS: The BETTER CARE-HF (Building Electronic Tools to Enhance and Reinforce CArdiovascular REcommendations for Heart Failure) trial aims to compare the effectiveness of the alert vs. the automated message vs. usual care on the primary outcome of MRA prescribing. To our knowledge, no study has directly compared the efficacy of these two different types of electronic CDS interventions. If effective, our findings can be rapidly disseminated to improve morbidity and mortality for patients with HFrEF, and can also inform the development of future CDS interventions for other disease states. (Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05275920).

Biomarkers and cardiovascular events in patients with stable coronary disease in the ISCHEMIA Trials.

IMPORTANCE: Biomarkers may improve prediction of cardiovascular events for patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD), but their importance in addition to clinical tests of inducible ischemia and CAD severity is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prognostic value of multiple biomarkers in stable outpatients with obstructive CAD and moderate or severe inducible ischemia. DESIGN AND SETTING: The ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA CKD trials randomized 5,956 participants with CAD to invasive or conservative management from July 2012 to January 2018; 1,064 participated in the biorepository. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. Secondary outcome was cardiovascular death or MI. Improvements in prediction were assessed by cause-specific hazard ratios (HR) and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) for an interquartile increase in each biomarker, controlling for other biomarkers, in a base clinical model of risk factors, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and ischemia severity. Secondary analyses were performed among patients in whom core-lab confirmed severity of CAD was ascertained by computed cardiac tomographic angiography (CCTA). EXPOSURES: Baseline levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6), high sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT), growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), lipoprotein a (Lp[a]), high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), Cystatin C, soluble CD 40 ligand (sCD40L), myeloperoxidase (MPO), and matrix metalloproteinase 3 (MMP3). RESULTS: Among 757 biorepository participants, median (IQR) follow-up was 3 (2-5) years, age was 67 (61-72) years, and 144 (19%) were female; 508 had severity of CAD by CCTA available. In an adjusted multimarker model with hsTnT, GDF-15, NT-proBNP and sCD40L, the adjusted HR for the primary outcome per interquartile increase in each biomarker was 1.58 (95% CI 1.22, 2.205), 1.60 (95% CI 1.16, 2.20), 1.61 (95% 1.22, 2.14), and 1.46 (95% 1.12, 1.90), respectively. The adjusted multimarker model also improved prediction compared with the clinical model, increasing the AUC from 0.710 to 0.792 (P < .01) and 0.714 to 0.783 (P < .01) for the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Similar findings were observed after adjusting for core-lab confirmed atherosclerosis severity. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among ISCHEMIA biorepository participants, biomarkers of myocyte injury/distension, inflammation, and platelet activity improved cardiovascular event prediction in addition to risk factors, LVEF, and assessments of ischemia and atherosclerosis severity. These biomarkers may improve risk stratification for patients with stable CAD.

An inflammatory transcriptomic signature in psoriasis associates with future cardiovascular events.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is an inflammatory skin disease associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) risk, whose pathogenesis is not fully known. OBJECTIVE: We identified a transcriptomic signature in psoriasis and investigated its association with prevalent and future risk of a CV event to understand the connection between psoriasis and CV disease (CVD). METHODS: Psoriasis patients (n = 37) with a history of moderate-severe skin disease without CVD and 11 matched controls underwent whole blood RNA sequencing. This transcriptomic signature in psoriasis versus controls was evaluated in two CVD cohorts: Women referred for cardiac catheterization with (n = 76) versus without (n = 97) myocardial infarction (MI), and patients with peripheral artery disease (n = 106) followed over 2.5 years for major adverse CV or limb events (MACLE). The association between genes differentially expressed in psoriasis and prevalent and incident CV events was assed. RESULTS: In psoriasis, median age was 44 (IQR; 34-51) years, 49% male and ACC/AHA ASCVD Risk Score of 1.0% (0.6-3.4) with no significant difference versus controls. The median psoriasis area and severity index score (PASI) was 4.0 (IQR 2.9-8.2) with 36% on biologic therapy. Overall, 247 whole blood genes were upregulated and 228 downregulated in psoriasis versus controls (p < 0.05), and 1302 genes positively and 1244 genes negatively correlated with PASI (p < 0.05). Seventy-three genes overlapped between psoriasis prevalence and PASI with key regulators identified as IL-6, IL-1ß and interferon gamma. In the CVD cohorts, 50 of 73 genes (68%) identified in psoriasis associated with prevalent MI, and 29 (40%) with incident MACLE. Key regulator transcripts identified in psoriasis and CVD cohorts included SOCS3, BCL3, OSM, PIM2, PIM3 and STAT5A. CONCLUSIONS: A whole blood transcriptomic signature of psoriasis diagnosis and severity associated with prevalent MI and incident MACLE. These data have implications for better understanding the link between psoriasis, systemic inflammation and CVD.

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

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

Ten-Year Differences in Women's Awareness Related to Coronary Heart Disease: Results of the 2019 American Heart Association National Survey: A Special Report From the American Heart Association.

BACKGROUND: High awareness that cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death (LCOD) among women is critical to prevention. This study evaluated longitudinal trends in this awareness among women. METHODS AND RESULTS: Online surveys of US women (≥25 years of age) were conducted in January 2009 and January 2019. Data were weighted to the US population distribution of sociodemographic characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate knowledge of the LCOD. In 2009, awareness of heart disease as the LCOD was 65%, decreasing to 44% in 2019. In 2019, awareness was greater with older age and increasing education and lower among non-White women and women with hypertension. The 10-year awareness decline was observed in all races/ethnicities and ages except women ≥65 years of age. The greatest declines were among Hispanic women (odds ratio of awareness comparing 2019 to 2009, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.07-0.28]), non-Hispanic Black women (odds ratio, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.19-0.49]), and 25- to 34-year-olds (odds ratio, 0.19 [95% CI, 0.10-0.34]). In 2019, women were more likely than in 2009 to incorrectly identify breast cancer as the LCOD (odds ratio, 2.59 [95% CI, 1.86-3.67]), an association that was greater in younger women. Awareness of heart attack symptoms also declined. CONCLUSIONS: Awareness that heart disease is the LCOD among women declined from 2009 to 2019, particularly among Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black women and in younger women (in whom primordial/primary prevention may be most effective). An urgent redoubling of efforts by organizations interested in women's health is required to reverse these trends.

Natural History of Patients With Ischemia and No Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease: The CIAO-ISCHEMIA Study.

BACKGROUND: Ischemia with no obstructive coronary artery disease (INOCA) is common and has an adverse prognosis. We set out to describe the natural history of symptoms and ischemia in INOCA. METHODS: CIAO-ISCHEMIA (Changes in Ischemia and Angina over One Year in ISCHEMIA Trial Screen Failures With INOCA) was an international cohort study conducted from 2014 to 2019 involving angina assessments (Seattle Angina Questionnaire) and stress echocardiograms 1 year apart. This was an ancillary study that included patients with a history of angina who were not randomly assigned in the ISCHEMIA trial. Stress-induced wall motion abnormalities were determined by an echocardiographic core laboratory blinded to symptoms, coronary artery disease status, and test timing. Medical therapy was at the discretion of treating physicians. The primary outcome was the correlation between the changes in the Seattle Angina Questionnaire angina frequency score and changes in echocardiographic ischemia. We also analyzed predictors of 1-year changes in both angina and ischemia, and we compared CIAO participants with ISCHEMIA participants with obstructive coronary artery disease who had stress echocardiography before enrollment, as CIAO participants did. RESULTS: INOCA participants in CIAO were more often female (66% of 208 versus 26% of 865 ISCHEMIA participants with obstructive coronary artery disease, P<0.001), but the magnitude of ischemia was similar (median 4 ischemic segments [interquartile range, 3-5] both groups). Ischemia and angina were not significantly correlated at enrollment in CIAO (P=0.46) or ISCHEMIA stress echocardiography participants (P=0.35). At 1 year, the stress echocardiogram was normal in half of CIAO participants, and 23% had moderate or severe ischemia (≥3 ischemic segments). Angina improved in 43% and worsened in 14%. Change in ischemia over 1 year was not significantly correlated with change in angina (ρ=0.029). CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in ischemia and angina were common in INOCA but not correlated. Our INOCA cohort had a degree of inducible wall motion abnormalities similar to concurrently enrolled ISCHEMIA participants with obstructive coronary artery disease. Our results highlight the complex nature of INOCA pathophysiology and the multifactorial nature of angina. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02347215.

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

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

Myocardial Infarction in the ISCHEMIA Trial: Impact of Different Definitions on Incidence, Prognosis, and Treatment Comparisons.

BACKGROUND: In the ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches), an initial invasive strategy did not significantly reduce rates of cardiovascular events or all-cause mortality in comparison with a conservative strategy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate/severe myocardial ischemia. The most frequent component of composite cardiovascular end points was myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS: ISCHEMIA prespecified that the primary and major secondary composite end points of the trial be analyzed using 2 MI definitions. For procedural MI, the primary MI definition used creatine kinase-MB as the preferred biomarker, whereas the secondary definition used cardiac troponin. Procedural thresholds were >5 times the upper reference level for percutaneous coronary intervention and >10 times for coronary artery bypass grafting. Procedural MI definitions included (1) a category of elevated biomarker only events with much higher biomarker thresholds, (2) new ST-segment depression of ≥1 mm for the primary and ≥0.5 mm for the secondary definition, and (3) new coronary dissections >National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grade 3. We compared MI type, frequency, and prognosis by treatment assignment using both MI definitions. RESULTS: Procedural MIs accounted for 20.1% of all MI events with the primary definition and 40.6% of all MI events with the secondary definition. Four-year MI rates in patients undergoing revascularization were more frequent with the invasive versus conservative strategy using the primary (2.7% versus 1.1%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.98 [95% CI, 1.87-4.73]) and secondary (8.2% versus 2.0%; adjusted HR, 5.04 [95% CI, 3.64-6.97]) MI definitions. Type 1 MIs were less frequent with the invasive versus conservative strategy using the primary (3.40% versus 6.89%; adjusted HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.41-0.69]; P<0.0001) and secondary (3.48% versus 6.89%; adjusted HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.41-0.69]; P<0.0001) definitions. The risk of subsequent cardiovascular death was higher after a type 1 MI than after no MI using the primary (adjusted HR, 3.38 [95% CI, 2.03-5.61]; P<0.001) or secondary MI definition (adjusted HR, 3.52 [2.11-5.88]; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In ISCHEMIA, type 1 MI events using the primary and secondary definitions during 5-year follow-up were more frequent with an initial conservative strategy and associated with subsequent cardiovascular death. Procedural MI rates were greater in the invasive strategy and with the use of the secondary MI definition. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.