Long-term safety and efficacy of anacetrapib in patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease.

AIMS: REVEAL was the first randomized controlled trial to demonstrate that adding cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor therapy to intensive statin therapy reduced the risk of major coronary events. We now report results from extended follow-up beyond the scheduled study treatment period. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 30 449 adults with prior atherosclerotic vascular disease were randomly allocated to anacetrapib 100 mg daily or matching placebo, in addition to open-label atorvastatin therapy. After stopping the randomly allocated treatment, 26 129 survivors entered a post-trial follow-up period, blind to their original treatment allocation. The primary outcome was first post-randomization major coronary event (i.e. coronary death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization) during the in-trial and post-trial treatment periods, with analysis by intention-to-treat. Allocation to anacetrapib conferred a 9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 3-15%; P = 0.004] proportional reduction in the incidence of major coronary events during the study treatment period (median 4.1 years). During extended follow-up (median 2.2 years), there was a further 20% (95% CI 10-29%; P < 0.001) reduction. Overall, there was a 12% (95% CI 7-17%, P < 0.001) proportional reduction in major coronary events during the overall follow-up period (median 6.3 years), corresponding to a 1.8% (95% CI 1.0-2.6%) absolute reduction. There were no significant effects on non-vascular mortality, site-specific cancer, or other serious adverse events. Morbidity follow-up was obtained for 25 784 (99%) participants. CONCLUSION: The beneficial effects of anacetrapib on major coronary events increased with longer follow-up, and no adverse effects emerged on non-vascular mortality or morbidity. These findings illustrate the importance of sufficiently long treatment and follow-up duration in randomized trials of lipid-modifying agents to assess their full benefits and potential harms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 48678192; ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT01252953; EudraCT No. 2010-023467-18.

Effect of investigator bias on the significance level of the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

When using subjective ordered categorical variables to measure the efficacy of an active treatment versus placebo in a double-blind clinical trial setting, bias may be introduced into the response variables when investigators become partially or totally unblinded to treatment assignment due to characteristic side effects. The investigators may alter the classification of a patient's response to treatment based on perceived treatment assignment. The introduction of bias leads to a considerable increase in the actual significance level of the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

Precision and discriminatory ability of calcaneal bone assessment technologies.

To determine if measuring skeletal status at the calcaneus is a potentially valuable technique for diagnosing osteoporosis, we examined five calcaneal assessment techniques in 53 young normal women and 108 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and compared these measurements to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) at the calcaneus, hip, and spine. The five instruments, including single-energy X-ray absorptiometry (SEXA) and four quantitative ultrasound (QUS) instruments, were evaluated for precision, ability to discriminate osteoporotic from young normal subjects, and correlation to the other instruments. The coefficient of variation (%CV) for instrument, positioning, interobserver, and short-term precision of the five calcaneal instruments ranged from 1.34-7.76%, 1.63-7.00%, 1.84-9.44%, and 1.99-7.04%, respectively. The %CVs for positioning, interobserver, and short-term precision were similar for calcaneal DEXA, calcaneal SEXA, and stiffness (as measured by Achilles). The %CVs for instruments precision were similar between calcaneal DEXA and SEXA. The ability of the five calcaneal instruments to discriminate osteoporotic from young normal subjects was similar based on the analysis of area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (range 0.88-0.93) and equivalent to DEXA of the calcaneus and hip (0.88-0.93). The correlations between the measurements of five calcaneal instruments were strong (0.80 < or = r < or = 0.91, p < 0.001). These data suggest that although the precision is variable, the calcaneal QUS and SEXA instruments can discriminate between osteoporotic patients and young normal controls and appear to be a useful technique for assessment of osteoporosis.

Losartan versus valsartan in the treatment of patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension: data from a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 12-week trial.

BACKGROUND: Losartan, the first of the angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) to be introduced, has been studied extensively in comparison with other classes of antihypertensive agents. Less research has been conducted on the efficacy and tolerability of losartan compared with that of other ARBs. OBJECTIVE: This randomized, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group equivalence study was conducted to compare the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of a once-daily regimen of losartan with that of valsartan. METHODS: Patients > or = 21 years of age with mild to moderate hypertension, defined as a trough sitting diastolic blood pressure (SiDBP) between 95 and 115 mm Hg, were randomized to receive once-daily losartan (50 mg) or valsartan (80 mg) for 12 weeks. At the end of the sixth treatment week, patients in both groups with trough SiDBP > or = 90 mm Hg had their dose doubled for the remainder of the treatment period. Analysis of variance was used to compare treatment groups with respect to change in mean trough SiDBP from baseline to week 12. Within-treatment changes were analyzed using the paired t test. With at least 220 patients per treatment group, the study had 90% power to place a 90% CI on the difference between losartan and valsartan in SiDBP within the equivalence interval of +/- 2.5 mm Hg. RESULTS: A total of 495 patients were randomized, 247 to the losartan group and 248 to the valsartan group: 456 patients completed the study. Adjusted mean change from baseline values for trough SiDBP atthe end of 12 weeks of treatment were significantly different (P < 0.001) from zero in both the losartan group (-9.9 mm Hg) and the valsartan group (-10.1 mm Hg). At week 12, losartan was as effective as valsartan in lowering SiDBP, with a between-group difference of 0.2 mm Hg (90% CI, -1.3 to 1.7; P = 0.827). At week 6, the difference in SiDBP between groups was -1.3 mm Hg (90% CI, -2.7 to 0.0; P = 0.106). A similar pattern of results was obtained at weeks 6 and 12 for sitting systolic blood pressure. The percentage of patients reaching the SiDBP goal at week 6 (46% [112/2411 losartan; 42% [103/245] valsartan) and week 12 (57% [139/243] losartan; 59% [145/245] valsartan) was not significantly different between the treatment groups. Both losartan and valsartan were similarly well tolerated. Over the 12 weeks, the laboratory profiles of the 2 drugs were similar except for serum uric acid levels, which decreased from 6.0 to 5.7 mg/dL in the losartan group and increased from 5.9 to 6.0 mg/dL in the valsartan group (P = 0.001 for between-treatment difference). CONCLUSIONS: At starting and titrated doses, losartan and valsartan are similarly effective in reducing blood pressure in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Losartan, but not valsartan, was associated with a decrease in serum uric acid levels.

Effect of investigator bias on the power and level of the two-sample Z-test.

The use of subjective measures in the evaluation of treatment efficacy in clinical trials may introduce bias into the response variables of interest when investigators attempt to guess the treatment that patients are receiving. The bias may be introduced even in the setting of double-blind clinical trials due to the presence of characteristic side effects. The introduction of bias leads to an increase in the power of the statistical test. However, this increase in power is achieved at a considerable increase in the actual level of the statistical test.

Effect of indomethacin on blood pressure lowering by captopril and losartan in hypertensive patients.

NSAIDs are known to attenuate the effects of some antihypertensive medications. It is not known whether the new class of angiotensin II receptor antagonists is similarly affected. We conducted a multicenter study assessing the effect of indomethacin on the antihypertensive effects of losartan and captopril. After 4 weeks of placebo washout, hypertensive patients received 6 weeks of active antihypertensive therapy with either 50 mg losartan once daily (n=111) or 25 mg captopril twice daily for 1 week, which was increased to 50 mg twice daily for 5 weeks (n=105). This was followed by 1 week of concomitant therapy with indomethacin (75 mg daily). The primary outcome measure was the change in mean 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure after the addition of indomethacin. Both captopril and losartan significantly lowered ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (losartan -5.3 mm Hg, P:<0.001; captopril -5.6 mm Hg, P:<0.001) after 6 weeks of therapy. Indomethacin significantly attenuated the 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure for both losartan (2.2 mm Hg, P:<0.05) and captopril (2.7 mm Hg, P:<0.001) and also attenuated the effect of captopril on trough sitting diastolic blood pressure. Changes in daytime diastolic blood pressure (7:00 AM to 11:00 PM) were similar to the 24-hour response in both groups. Nighttime diastolic blood pressure (11:01 PM to 6:59 AM) was significantly attenuated in captopril-treated patients (2.0 mm Hg, P:<0.05), but losartan was unaffected (0.4 mm Hg). Thus, concurrent treatment with indomethacin similarly attenuates the 24-hour antihypertensive response to losartan and captopril.

Oral montelukast compared with inhaled salmeterol to prevent exercise-induced bronchoconstriction. A randomized, double-blind trial. Exercise Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Montelukast, an oral, once-daily leukotriene receptor antagonist, provides protection against exercise-induced bronchoconstriction. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of 8 weeks of therapy with salmeterol aerosol or montelukast on exercise-induced bronchoconstriction in adults with asthma. DESIGN: 8-week multicenter, randomized, double-blind study. SETTING: 17 asthma treatment centers in the United States. PATIENTS: 191 adults with asthma who had documented exercise-induced bronchoconstriction. INTERVENTION: Qualified patients were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with montelukast (10 mg once in the evening) or salmeterol (50 microg [2 puffs] twice daily). MEASUREMENTS: Changes in pre-exercise and postexercise challenge values; percentage inhibition in the maximal percentage decrease in FEV1; the area above the FEV1-time curve; and time to recovery of FEV1 at days 1 to 3, week 4, and week 8 of treatment. RESULTS: By day 3, similar and statistically significant reductions in maximal percentage decrease in FEV1 were seen with both therapies. Sustained improvement occurred in the montelukast group at weeks 4 and 8; at these time points, the bronchoprotective effect of salmeterol decreased significantly. At week 8, the percentage inhibition in the maximal percentage decrease in FEV1 was 57.2% in the montelukast group and 33.0% in the salmeterol group (P = 0.002). By week 8, 67% of patients receiving montelukast and 46% of patients receiving salmeterol had a maximal percentage decrease in FEV1 of less than 20%. CONCLUSIONS: The bronchoprotective effect of montelukast was maintained throughout 8 weeks of study. In contrast, significant loss of bronchoprotection at weeks 4 and 8 was seen with salmeterol. Long-term administration of montelukast provided consistent inhibition of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction at the end of the 8-week dosing interval without tolerance.

Comparison of early invasive and conservative strategies in patients with unstable coronary syndromes treated with the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofiban.

BACKGROUND: There is continued debate as to whether a routine, early invasive strategy is superior to a conservative strategy for the management of unstable angina and myocardial infarction without ST-segment elevation. METHODS: We enrolled 2220 patients with unstable angina and myocardial infarction without ST-segment elevation who had electrocardiographic evidence of changes in the ST segment or T wave, elevated levels of cardiac markers, a history of coronary artery disease, or all three findings. All patients were treated with aspirin, heparin, and the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofiban. They were randomly assigned to an early invasive strategy, which included routine catheterization within 4 to 48 hours and revascularization as appropriate, or to a more conservative (selectively invasive) strategy, in which catheterization was performed only if the patient had objective evidence of recurrent ischemia or an abnormal stress test. The primary end point was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and rehospitalization for an acute coronary syndrome at six months. RESULTS: At six months, the rate of the primary end point was 15.9 percent with use of the early invasive strategy and 19.4 percent with use of the conservative strategy (odds ratio, 0.78; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.62 to 0.97; P=0.025). The rate of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction at six months was similarly reduced (7.3 percent vs. 9.5 percent; odds ratio, 0.74; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.54 to 1.00; P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with unstable angina and myocardial infarction without ST-segment elevation who were treated with the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofiban, the use of an early invasive strategy significantly reduced the incidence of major cardiac events. These data support a policy involving broader use of the early inhibition of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa in combination with an early invasive strategy in such patients.

Ability of minor elevations of troponins I and T to predict benefit from an early invasive strategy in patients with unstable angina and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction: results from a randomized trial.

CONTEXT: Cardiac troponins I (cTnI) and T (cTnT) are useful for assessing prognosis in patients with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI). However, the use of cardiac troponins for predicting benefit of an invasive vs conservative strategy in this patient population is not clear. OBJECTIVE: To prospectively test whether an early invasive strategy provides greater benefit than a conservative strategy in acute coronary syndrome patients with elevated baseline troponin levels. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized trial conducted from December 1997 to June 2000. SETTING: One hundred sixty-nine community and tertiary care hospitals in 9 countries. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2220 patients with acute coronary syndrome were enrolled. Baseline troponin level data were available for analysis in 1821, and 1780 completed the 6-month follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive (1) an early invasive strategy of coronary angiography between 4 and 48 hours after randomization and revascularization when feasible based on coronary anatomy (n = 1114) or (2) a conservative strategy of medical treatment and, if stable, predischarge exercise tolerance testing (n = 1106). Conservative strategy patients underwent coronary angiography and revascularization only if they manifested recurrent ischemia at rest or on provocative testing. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Composite end point of death, MI, or rehospitalization for acute coronary syndrome at 6 months. RESULTS: Patients with a cTnI level of 0.1 ng/mL or more (n = 1087) experienced a significant reduction in the primary end point with the invasive vs conservative strategy (15.3% vs 25.0%; odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.73). Patients with cTnI levels of less than 0.1 ng/mL had no detectable benefit from early invasive management (16.0% vs 12.4%; OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.89-2.05; P<.001 for interaction). The benefit of invasive vs conservative management through 30 days was evident even among patients with low-level (0.1-0.4 ng/mL) cTnI elevation (4.4% vs 16.5%; OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.08-0.69). Directionally similar results were observed with cTnT. CONCLUSION: In patients with clinically documented acute coronary syndrome who are treated with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, even small elevations in cTnI and cTnT identify high-risk patients who derive a large clinical benefit from an early invasive strategy.