Trend changes of national zolpidem users and exposure cases after FDA drug safety communications.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of FDA's 2013 zolpidem Drug Safety Communications (DSCs), which recommended lowering the initial dose to mitigate drowsiness, on national estimates of zolpidem users and zolpidem exposure cases. METHODS: We analyzed trend changes of national zolpidem users from the IQVIA Total Patient Tracker (TPT) and zolpidem exposure cases reported to the National Poison Data System (NPDS), 2009-2018. To control for time varying confounding, the adjusted trends were analyzed using simple and controlled interrupted time series (ITS). We also adjusted for seasonal changes. Three sedating antidepressants were used together as a control. RESULTS: The national estimates of high-dose zolpidem users in TPT decreased significantly in the month immediately post-DSC; the absolute level decrease was -12.51 (95% CI: -14.12, -10.89) per 10 000 U.S. population relative to sedating antidepressants. The trend continuously decreased post-DSC, resulting in a 59% overall decrease by the end of the study period. There was a larger decrease in high-dose zolpidem use in females than in males. There was a level decrease of zolpidem exposure cases in the NPDS immediately post-DSC, -0.37 absolute decline (95% CI, -0.53, -0.20) per 10 000 national zolpidem users; or -1.33 absolute decline (95% CI, -1.54, -1.13) per 1000 total NPDS exposure cases relative to sedating antidepressants. Similar patterns were observed for cases reporting drowsiness. The results from the single ITS and controlled ITS were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Zolpidem users and exposure cases decreased significantly post-DSC, suggesting practitioners and patients became aware of and responded to the zolpidem DSCs.

FDA postmarketing safety labeling changes: What have we learned since 2010 about impacts on prescribing rates, drug utilization, and treatment outcomes.

PURPOSE: Prior literature reviews have identified gaps in understanding of how postmarketing safety labeling changes and related FDA communications impact key clinical and behavioral outcomes. We conducted a review of newly published studies on this topic to determine what new evidence exists and to identify which gaps may still remain. We believe that this information can support FDA as it develops and implements future risk communication approaches. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase for studies published between January 1, 2010, and August 7, 2017 that examined the impact of labeling changes or associated FDA safety-related communications. For each study, we extracted information on research design and findings for key clinical outcomes and behaviors. We also conducted a ROBINS-I review to identify potential for bias in the research design of each study. RESULTS: We found that the estimated impacts of FDA labeling changes on several key outcomes-including adverse events-varied. Labeling changes also yielded unintended consequences on drug prescribing in some cases, despite low provider adherence. Finally, some studies we reviewed exhibited potential for bias due to confounding, among other factors. CONCLUSIONS: The new studies we reviewed contain many of the same limitations identified in previously published reviews. While there are several challenges to conducting this research there is substantial room for improvement in the quality of the evidence base. More information, particularly with respect to the types of populations and medications affected by labeling changes, is needed to support the development of more effective and targeted safety communications.

A systematic assessment of key design and performance characteristics of drug exposure registries requested by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to evaluate contributions to postmarket safety assessments and identify potential factors for enhancing implementation and utilization of registries in regulatory decision-making. METHODS: Registry documents (e.g., protocols, reports) submitted to the FDA were identified up to January 2016 through an extensive, systematic review of internal records and resources. We characterized nonpregnancy drug exposure registries based on prespecified design elements, performance, and regulatory impact. RESULTS: A total of 65 registries were identified: 56 registries were open and 9 closed. Among open registries, 20% were pending, 14% delayed, and 16% ongoing less than ≤3 years. Most registries (82%) examined safety issues that originally arose from clinical trials; most frequent safety issues investigated included infections, gastrointestinal dysfunction, and liver toxicity. Although 74% of registries ascertained baseline health conditions and monitored concomitant medication use, fewer (45%) considered drug exposure duration or dosage. Thirty-seven percent of non pending registries had enrollment below sample size expectation. Seventeen registries published findings in journals/conference proceedings, 13 from open registries. Three closed registries generated results that contributed to product label changes. High-performance registries scored higher in design metrics related to sample size considerations (76% versus 62%) and adequate analysis plan (53% versus 35%), and interim report submission (76% versus 65%). There was a significant difference in proportion of registries with clear primary objectives between high versus not high performing registries (100% versus 78%). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests clear objectives, patient accrual/retention efforts, adequate analysis plans, and interim reports contribute to the performance of drug exposure registries.

Trends in pediatric nonprescription analgesic/antipyretic exposures during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To examine pediatric exposure trends involving selected nonprescription analgesics/antipyretics, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Using descriptive and interrupted time-series analyses, we assessed monthly United States poison center data involving pediatric (<18 years) exposures to nonprescription paracetamol (acetaminophen), ibuprofen, acetylsalicylic acid, and naproxen before (January 2015-February 2020) and during (March 2020-April 2021) the pandemic. Statins and proton pump inhibitors (prescription or nonprescription) served as controls. RESULTS: Most nonprescription analgesic/antipyretic exposures (75-90%) were single-substance; unintentional exposures typically involved children <6 years (84-92%), while intentional exposures involved females (82-85%) and adolescents, 13-17 years (91-93%). Unintentional exposures among children <6 years, declined for all four analgesics/antipyretics immediately after the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic (March 11, 2020), but most significantly for ibuprofen (30-39%). Most intentional exposures were classified as suspected suicide. Intentional exposures were relatively low and stable among males. Intentional exposures in females declined immediately after the pandemic was announced but subsequently increased to pre-pandemic levels for acetylsalicylic acid and naproxen and above pre-pandemic levels for paracetamol and ibuprofen. For paracetamol, female intentional exposures increased from 513 average monthly cases in the pre-pandemic to 641 average monthly cases during the pandemic; and reached 888 cases by the end of the study period in April 2021. While for ibuprofen, average monthly cases rose from 194 in the pre-pandemic, to 223 during the pandemic; and reached 352 cases in April 2021. Patterns were similar among females 6-12 and 13-17 years. CONCLUSION: Nonprescription analgesic/antipyretic unintentional exposure cases declined among young children, while intentional exposure cases increased among females, 6-17 years, during the pandemic. Findings highlight the importance of safely storing medications and being alert to signs that adolescents may be in need of mental health support services; caregivers should seek medical care or call poison control centers for any suspected poisoning event.

Assessment of the Impact of Mandated Postmarketing Pediatric-Focused Safety Reviews on Safety-Related Regulatory Actions 2013-2019.

The US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) routine postmarketing drug safety monitoring may lead to safety-related labeling changes for identified risks. Additionally, the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) and Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA) require the FDA to conduct postmarket pediatric-focused safety reviews of adverse events. The purpose of these pediatric reviews is to identify risks associated with drug or biological products 18 months after the FDA approves a pediatric labeling change pursuant to studies conducted under the BPCA or PREA. These reviews are presented to the FDA Pediatric Advisory Committee (PAC) or publicly posted on FDA's website. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of pediatric reviews prompted by BPCA/PREA from October 1, 2013, to September 30, 2019. The impact was quantified by the number of new safety signals identified and the subsequent safety-related labeling changes resulting from pediatric reviews relative to safety-related labeling changes triggered by other data sources. Among 163 products with at least one pediatric review completed, a new safety signal that resulted in a safety-related labeling change was found for 5 of these products (representing 3 active ingredients); none described risks specific to the pediatric population. Between October 2013 and September 2021, there were 585 safety-related labeling changes implemented for products with at least one completed pediatric review. Less than 1% of 585 safety-related labeling changes were the result of a mandated pediatric review. Our study suggests that mandated pediatric reviews conducted 18 months after a pediatric labeling change provided minimal value over other postmarket safety surveillance activities.

Pediatric cardiovascular safety: challenges in drug and device development and clinical application.

Development of pediatric medications and devices is complicated by differences in pediatric physiology and pathophysiology (both compared with adults and within the pediatric age range), small patient populations, and practical and ethical challenges to designing clinical trials. This article summarizes the discussions that occurred at a Cardiac Safety Research Consortium-sponsored Think Tank convened on December 10, 2010, where members from academia, industry, and regulatory agencies discussed important issues regarding pediatric cardiovascular safety of medications and cardiovascular devices. Pediatric drug and device development may use adult data but often requires additional preclinical and clinical testing to characterize effects on cardiac function and development. Challenges in preclinical trials include identifying appropriate animal models, clinically relevant efficacy end points, and methods to monitor cardiovascular safety. Pediatric clinical trials have different ethical concerns from adult trials, including consideration of the subjects' families. Clinical trial design in pediatrics should assess risks and benefits as well as incorporate input from families. Postmarketing surveillance, mandated by federal law, plays an important role in both drug and device safety assessment and becomes crucial in the pediatric population because of the limitations of premarketing pediatric studies. Solutions for this wide array of issues will require collaboration between academia, industry, and government as well as creativity in pediatric study design. Formation of various epidemiologic tools including registries to describe outcomes of pediatric cardiac disease and its treatment as well as cardiac effects of noncardiovascular medications, should inform preclinical and clinical development and improve benefit-risk assessments for the patients. The discussions in this article summarize areas of emerging consensus and other areas in which consensus remains elusive and provide suggestions for additional research to further our knowledge and understanding of this topic.

Disproportionality analysis for signal detection of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator-related adverse events in the Food and Drug Administration Medical Device Reporting System.

BACKGROUND: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) became aware of lead fracture and inappropriate shock events related to Sprint Fidelis leads in January 2007. The manufacturer announced a voluntary market withdrawal in October 2007. AIM: Our aim was to retrospectively evaluate this safety signal using disproportionality analysis to estimate whether disproportionality analysis could have detected this particular safety signal earlier than actually occurred. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database contains reports on device-related adverse events, of which, FDA receives several hundred thousand every year. For each manufacturer, a list of the top lead brand names was ranked by frequency of reports. We used the Multi-item Gamma Poisson Shrinker (MGPS) method for analysis. We isolated 11 top-reported implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) lead brand names. Using MGPS methodology, we calculated the one-sided 95% lower confidence bound EB05 on the empirical Bayes geometric mean of the reporting ratio. RESULTS: We performed individual MGPS analysis for each of the top reported adverse events in 2006 for ICD leads. Fidelis had the highest EB05 scores for lead fractures and inappropriate shock. DISCUSSION: Through disproportionality analysis of the MAUDE database, we were able to identify known safety signals associated with the Medtronic Sprint Fidelis lead. CONCLUSION: If utilized at the time, this disproportionality analysis would have identified signals earlier for lead fractures, oversensing, high impedance, and inappropriate shock.

Sources of Evidence Triggering and Supporting Safety-Related Labeling Changes: A 10-Year Longitudinal Assessment of 22 New Molecular Entities Approved in 2008 by the US Food and Drug Administration.

INTRODUCTION: New safety issues concerning US FDA-approved drugs are commonly communicated through safety-related labeling changes. Therefore, to optimize and refine postmarket safety surveillance strategies, it is important to comprehensively characterize the sources of data giving rise to safety-related labeling changes. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to characterize the sources of data triggering and supporting the identification of new safety risks of FDA-approved drugs communicated through safety-related labeling changes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study with a 10-year observation period using FDA's internal electronic data repositories for all prescription new molecular entities (NME) approved in 2008. We collected and analyzed information on new safety issues, the section of the full prescribing information updated, initiators (FDA, drug manufacturer), and triggering and supporting sources of evidence. RESULTS: Among 22 NMEs approved in 2008, 189 new safety issues for 18 NMEs were identified. Compared to drug manufacturer, FDA initiated safety-related labeling changes in nine of the ten changes to the Boxed Warnings, 28 of the 52 changes to the Warnings and Precautions, and 43 of the 134 changes to the Adverse Reactions sections of the full prescribing information. The most frequent triggering sources of evidence included the drug manufacturer safety database (32.3%) and FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) safety reports (15.3%) for all relevant sections of the full prescribing information, and class-labeling changes (17.5%) for Boxed Warnings and the Warnings and Precautions sections. The most frequent triggering source of evidence was FAERS safety reports (69%) in the first year after drug approval and the drug manufacturer safety database in subsequent years. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings emphasize the continued importance of safety reports from FAERS and drug manufacturer safety databases and a comprehensive drug safety surveillance program throughout a drug's lifecycle.

The Impact of Variability in Patient Exposure During Premarket Clinical Development on Postmarket Safety Outcomes.

We characterized the size of the premarket safety population for 278 small-molecule new molecular entities (NMEs) and 61 new therapeutic biologics (NTBs) approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between October 1, 2002, and December 31, 2014, evaluating the relationship of premarket safety population size to regulatory characteristics and postmarket safety outcomes. The median size of the safety population was 1,044, and was lower for NTBs than NMEs (median: 920 vs. 1,138, P = 0.04), orphan products than nonorphan products (393 vs. 1,606, P < 0.001), and for products with fast-track designation (617 vs. 1,455, P < 0.001), priority review (630 vs. 1,735, P < 0.001), and accelerated approval (475 vs. 1,164, P < 0.001), than products without that designation. The median number of postmarket safety label updates and issues added to the label were higher with larger premarket exposure among nonorphan products, but not among orphan products. Products with accelerated approval using a surrogate end point had a higher median number of safety issues added to the label than those with full approval, but this did not vary with the size of the safety population; fast-track and priority review were not associated with the number of safety issues added to the label. A smaller safety population size was associated with a longer time to first safety outcome for nonorphan products but not orphan products. For orphan and nonorphan products combined, smaller premarket safety population size is not associated with the number or timing of postmarket safety outcomes, regardless of expedited program participation.

A Multi-modal Approach to Evaluate the Impact of Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) Programs.

INTRODUCTION: Since 2007, the US Food and Drug Administration has had the authority to require risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) programs for certain medications with serious safety concerns to help ensure the benefits of the medication outweigh its risks. Such programs can include requirements for patient monitoring, restrictions on dispensing or administration, and physician and pharmacy training and certification. However, there has been only scattered evidence on the impact of REMS programs on informed decision making, medication access, or patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article was to describe a study that researchers at Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School will conduct in partnership with the Food and Drug Administration's Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology to investigate systematically how REMS programs have operated in practice. METHODS: Investigations include health insurance claims-based analyses to understand patterns of drug use, adherence to safety requirements, and patient outcomes under REMS programs; surveys and interviews to understand physician and patient experiences with REMS; and REMS program material-based and interview-based analyses to understand the effectiveness of risk communication in REMS programs. CONCLUSIONS: These research activities will evaluate the performance of REMS programs, provide information on the benefits and burdens to patients and healthcare providers, and generate recommendations for actionable steps to improve REMS programs overall.

Developing the Safety of Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Registry Initiative (SAFARI) as a collaborative pan-stakeholder critical path registry model: a Cardiac Safety Research Consortium "Incubator" Think Tank.

Although several randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) in experienced centers, the outcomes of this procedure in routine clinical practice and in patients with persistent and long-standing persistent AF remain uncertain. Brisk adoption of this therapy by physicians with diverse training and experience highlights potential concerns regarding the safety and effectiveness of this procedure. Some of these concerns could be addressed by a national registry of AF ablation procedures such as the Safety of Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Registry Initiative that was initially proposed at a Cardiac Safety Research Consortium Think Tank meeting in April 2009. In January 2010, the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium, in collaboration with the Duke Clinical Research Institute, the US Food and Drug Administration, the American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Rhythm Society, held a follow-up meeting of experts in the field to review the construct and progress to date. Other participants included the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; the AdvaMed AF working group; and additional industry representatives. This article summarizes the discussions that occurred at the meeting of the state of the Safety of Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Registry Initiative, the identification of a clear pathway for its implementation, and the exploration of solutions to potential issues in the execution of this registry.

Planning the Safety of Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Registry Initiative (SAFARI) as a Collaborative Pan-Stakeholder Critical Path Registry Model: a Cardiac Safety Research Consortium "Incubator" Think Tank.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major public health problem in the United States that is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Of the therapeutic modalities available to treat AF, the use of percutaneous catheter ablation of AF is expanding rapidly. Randomized clinical trials examining the efficacy and safety of AF ablation are currently underway; however, such trials can only partially determine the safety and durability of the effect of the procedure in routine clinical practice, in more complex patients, and over a broader range of techniques and operator experience. These limitations of randomized trials of AF ablation, particularly with regard to safety issues, could be addressed using a synergistically structured national registry, which is the intention of the SAFARI. To facilitate discussions about objectives, challenges, and steps for such a registry, the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium and the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, in collaboration with the US Food and Drug Administration, the American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Rhythm Society, organized a Think Tank meeting of experts in the field. Other participants included the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, the AdvaMed AF working group, and additional industry representatives. The meeting took place on April 27 to 28, 2009, at the US Food and Drug Administration headquarters in Silver Spring, MD. This article summarizes the issues and directions presented and discussed at the meeting.

Postmarketing Safety-Related Regulatory Actions for New Therapeutic Biologics Approved in the United States 2002-2014: Similarities and Differences With New Molecular Entities.

We examined the relationship of regulatory and review characteristics to postmarketing safety-related regulatory actions for 61 new therapeutic biologics (NTBs) approved between October 1, 2002 and December 31, 2014. We also compared NTBs with small-molecule new molecular entities (NMEs) on these measures. Postmarketing safety-related regulatory actions were defined as a safety-related withdrawal or a safety-related update to a safety section of the label through June 30, 2018. Four NTBs were withdrawn, two for safety reasons. At least one safety-related update was added to the labels of 54 (88.5%) NTBs. Label updates occurred throughout the follow-up period. Time to the first safety-related regulatory action was shorter for NTBs approved under accelerated approval. The occurrence of safety events was more likely to occur with NTBs than with NMEs. This may be explained in part by the higher proportion of NTBs in the anatomical therapeutic chemical classification categories with higher frequency of safety-related updates. NTBs also had shorter time to safety events than NMEs. These findings underscore the importance of continued development of the life cycle safety surveillance system for both drugs and biologics with consideration for product type and its characteristics, including pharmacologic action.

Increasing participation of women in early phase clinical trials approved by the FDA.

BACKGROUND: Historically women were excluded from participation in phase 1 clinical trials. The goal of this study was to determine the participation of women and evaluate if participation has increased over time. METHODS: Clinical trial data submitted to the FDA for New Molecular Entities (NMEs) for adult, non-sex specific indications between January 2006 and December 2007 were reviewed. Electronic data available on phase 1 trial were evaluated for proposed indications, sex of participants, and doses tested. Therapeutic doses were obtained from the approved labeling. RESULTS: FDA approved 34 NMEs in 2006-2007. Data for 352 phase 1 trial of 30 NMEs were obtained. Data for 1 NME was not available electronically , 2 did not include new phase 1 data, and 1 provided only summary demographic data. All NMEs reviewed were for drugs used to treat conditions occurring in both men and women. Overall 120 (34.1%) trials had only male participants while 232 (65.9%) trials also enrolled female participants. 30.6% (3106/10,134) of participants were women. 149/352 (42.3%) of trials included safety and tolerability testing above the highest approved dose. In those trials, 32.5% (1628/5011) of the participants were women. An evaluation of trial start date illustrated the number of trials that enrolled women (p = 0.01) and the number of female participants (p < 0.001) has increased over time. CONCLUSION: Females subjects have traditionally been underrepresented in phase 1 trials. The number trials enrolling women and the number of women participating in phase 1 trials has increased since 2001, however, women are still underrepresented.

Postmarket Safety Outcomes for New Molecular Entity (NME) Drugs Approved by the Food and Drug Administration Between 2002 and 2014.

We ascertained a comprehensive list of postmarket safety outcomes, defined as a safety-related market withdrawal or an update to a safety-related section of product label for 278 new molecular entity drugs (NMEs) with a follow-up period of up to 13 years. At least one safety-related update was added to 195 (70.1%) labels of the drugs studied. Updates occurred as early as 160 days after approval and throughout the follow-up period. The period between the second and eighth postapproval year was the most active, with a slight attenuation thereafter. The times to the first safety outcome were significantly shorter for NMEs approved with a fast-track designation (P = 0.02) or under an accelerated approval using a surrogate endpoint (P = 0.03). Our findings underscore the importance of a robust safety surveillance system throughout a drug's lifecycle and for practitioners and patients to remain updated on drug safety profiles.

Intravascular gamma radiation for in-stent restenosis in saphenous-vein bypass grafts.

BACKGROUND: Intracoronary radiation therapy is effective in reducing the recurrence of in-stent stenosis in native coronary arteries. We examined the effects of intravascular gamma radiation in patients with in-stent restenosis of saphenous-vein bypass grafts. METHODS: A total of 120 patients with in-stent restenosis in saphenous-vein grafts, the majority of whom had diffuse lesions, underwent balloon angioplasty, atherectomy, additional stenting, or a combination of these procedures. If the intervention was successful, the patients were randomly assigned in a double-blind fashion to intravascular treatment with a ribbon containing either iridium-192 or nonradioactive seeds. The prescribed dose, delivered at a distance of 2 mm from the source, was 14 to 15 Gy in vessels that were 2.5 to 4.0 mm in diameter and 18 Gy in vessels with a diameter that exceeded 4.0 mm. The primary end points were death from cardiac causes, Q-wave myocardial infarction, revascularization of the target vessel, and a composite of these events at 12 months. RESULTS: Revascularization and radiation therapy were successfully accomplished in all patients. At six months, the restenosis rate was lower in the 60 patients assigned to the iridium-192 group than in the 60 assigned to the placebo group (21 percent vs. 44 percent, P=0.005). At 12 months, the rate of revascularization of the target lesion was 70 percent lower in the iridium-192 group than in the placebo group (17 percent vs. 57 percent, P<0.001), and the rate of major cardiac events was 49 percent lower (32 percent vs. 63 percent, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study support the use of gamma-radiation therapy for the treatment of in-stent restenosis in patients with bypass grafts.

The Food and Drug Administration Office of Women's Health: impact of science on regulatory policy.

In 1994, the Food and Drug Administration Office of Women's Health (FDA-OWH) was created to provide leadership and policy direction for the Agency regarding issues of women's health. Within its first year, the FDA-OWH established a science program for women's health research, promoting the development of sound policy and regulation. In a little over a decade, the program has provided approximately 14 million dollars to fund more than 100 women's health research studies covering a broad range of health topics affecting women across their lifespan. Some studies, such as those elucidating drug effects on QT prolongation in women and drug-dietary supplement interaction, have had significant influence on regulatory decisions. Other studies have provided sound scientific data on sex and gender differences supporting FDA guidelines to protect women's health. This paper describes the science program at the FDA-OWH, providing examples of how funded research impacts regulatory policy.

Preprocedure hyperglycemia is more strongly associated with restenosis in diabetic patients after percutaneous coronary intervention than is hemoglobin A1C.

BACKGROUND: Although more frequent in diabetic patients, restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is less common in those with good glycemic control. High circulating insulin levels may also be associated with more frequent restenosis. METHODS: Fasting blood samples were obtained from 162 diabetic patients immediately prior to the PCI and analyzed for glucose, hemoglobin A1C, and insulin. Nine-month follow-up information was obtained in 145 (89.5%) patients. Target vessel revascularization (TVR) was the surrogate for restenosis. RESULTS: Patients were divided into quartiles with regard to their blood levels. Insulin, calculated insulin resistance, and hemoglobin A1C were not associated with increased TVR rates. Glucose level was significantly associated (P=.02). Patients in the two lower quartiles (glucose < or = 128 mg/dl) had a 9-month TVR rate of 12.7% while those in the two higher quartiles (>128 mg/dl) had a rate of 33.8% (P=.005). Level of glucose was independent of hemoglobin A1C. In patients whose A1C level was < or = 7%, the TVR rate was greater in those with a glucose level >128 mg/dl (39.1% vs. 10.6%, P=.009). Similarly, in patients with a hemoglobin A1C level >7%, the TVR rate was lower in patients with a glucose level < or = 128 mg/dl, but this difference did not reach statistical significance (16.6% vs. 31.3%, P=.3). CONCLUSIONS: Hemoglobin A1C, insulin, and insulin resistance at the time of the PCI are not associated with restenosis. Periprocedural hyperglycemia may promote restenosis in diabetics.

Efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents compared with bare metal stents for saphenous vein graft intervention.

Saphenous vein graft (SVG) intervention is associated with a significantly increased rate of periprocedural complications and late clinical and angiographic restenosis. We examined the efficacy and safety of sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs; Cypher) compared with bare metal stents (BMSs) in SVG intervention. Forty-eight patients who had 50 SVG lesions and underwent standard percutaneous coronary intervention with SESs (SES group) were compared with 57 patients who had 64 SVG lesions and underwent intervention with BMSs (BMS group). All patients received distal protection devices during SVG intervention. In-hospital, 30-day, 6-month, and 1-year clinical outcomes in the 2 groups were compared. Baseline clinical and procedural characteristics were balanced between groups. There were no deaths or Q-wave myocardial infarctions during the index hospitalization, but compared with the BMS group, patients in the SES group had significantly fewer non-Q-wave myocardial infarctions (4% vs 21%, p = 0.01), which was mainly attributed to increased periprocedural creatine kinase-MB levels. At 30-day, 6-month, and 1-year follow-ups, all clinical outcomes were similar between groups. Event-free survival at 1 year was also similar between groups (p = 0.84). In conclusion, the use of SESs in patients who undergo SVG intervention with a distal protection device is clinically safe and feasible but is not associated with decreased clinical events up to 1 year compared with BMSs.

Twelve versus six months of clopidogrel to reduce major cardiac events in patients undergoing gamma-radiation therapy for in-stent restenosis: Washington Radiation for In-Stent restenosis Trial (WRIST) 12 versus WRIST PLUS.

BACKGROUND: Intracoronary gamma-radiation reduces recurrent in-stent restenosis (ISR). Late thrombosis was attenuated with 6 months of aspirin and clopidogrel. We aimed to find out whether 12 months of aspirin plus clopidogrel is superior to a strategy of 6 months after radiation therapy for patients with ISR. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred twenty consecutive patients with diffuse ISR in native coronaries and vein grafts with lesions <80 mm in length underwent PTCA, laser ablation, or rotational atherectomy. Additional stents were placed in 39 patients (33%). After the intervention, a ribbon with different trains of radioactive 192Ir seeds was positioned to cover the treated site, and a dose of 14 Gy to 2 mm was prescribed. Patients were discharged with clopidogrel and aspirin for 12 months and followed up clinically. The cardiac clinical event rates at 15 months were compared with the gamma-treated (n=120) patients of the WRIST PLUS study (only 6 months of antiplatelet therapy). Whereas the late thrombosis rates were similar (3.3% for the group given 12 months of antiplatelet therapy versus 4.2% for the group given 6 months, P=0.72), the group treated with 12 months of antiplatelet therapy had a rate of 21% for major adverse cardiac events and 20% for target-lesion revascularization compared with 36% (P=0.01) and 35% (P=0.009), respectively, in patients who were treated with only 6 months of clopidogrel. CONCLUSIONS: Twelve months of clopidogrel is superior to 6 months in reducing overall major cardiac events and revascularization rates at 15 months for patients with ISR treated with gamma-radiation. At least 12 months of clopidogrel therapy should be recommended for patients undergoing radiation therapy for ISR.