Empagliflozin in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: The effects of empagliflozin in patients with chronic kidney disease who are at risk for disease progression are not well understood. The EMPA-KIDNEY trial was designed to assess the effects of treatment with empagliflozin in a broad range of such patients. METHODS: We enrolled patients with chronic kidney disease who had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of at least 20 but less than 45 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area, or who had an eGFR of at least 45 but less than 90 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 with a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (with albumin measured in milligrams and creatinine measured in grams) of at least 200. Patients were randomly assigned to receive empagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or matching placebo. The primary outcome was a composite of progression of kidney disease (defined as end-stage kidney disease, a sustained decrease in eGFR to <10 ml per minute per 1.73 m2, a sustained decrease in eGFR of ≥40% from baseline, or death from renal causes) or death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS: A total of 6609 patients underwent randomization. During a median of 2.0 years of follow-up, progression of kidney disease or death from cardiovascular causes occurred in 432 of 3304 patients (13.1%) in the empagliflozin group and in 558 of 3305 patients (16.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.82; P<0.001). Results were consistent among patients with or without diabetes and across subgroups defined according to eGFR ranges. The rate of hospitalization from any cause was lower in the empagliflozin group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.95; P = 0.003), but there were no significant between-group differences with respect to the composite outcome of hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes (which occurred in 4.0% in the empagliflozin group and 4.6% in the placebo group) or death from any cause (in 4.5% and 5.1%, respectively). The rates of serious adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among a wide range of patients with chronic kidney disease who were at risk for disease progression, empagliflozin therapy led to a lower risk of progression of kidney disease or death from cardiovascular causes than placebo. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and others; EMPA-KIDNEY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03594110; EudraCT number, 2017-002971-24.).

Effects of aspirin on dementia and cognitive function in diabetic patients: the ASCEND trial.

AIMS: Aspirin is widely used in cardiovascular disease prevention but is also associated with an increased risk of bleeding. The net effect of aspirin on dementia and cognitive impairment is uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the ASCEND trial, 15 480 people from the UK with diabetes and no history of cardiovascular disease were randomized to aspirin 100 mg daily or matching placebo for a mean of 7.4 years. The 15 427 ASCEND participants with no recorded dementia prior to baseline were included in this cognitive study with a primary pre-specified outcome of 'broad dementia', comprising dementia, cognitive impairment, or confusion. This was ascertained through participant, carer, or general practitioner report or hospital admission diagnosis, by 31 March 2019 (∼2 years beyond the scheduled treatment period). The broad dementia outcome occurred in a similar percentage of participants in the aspirin group and placebo group: 548 participants (7.1%) vs. 598 (7.8%), rate ratio 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.81-1.02]. Thus, the CI excluded proportional hazards of >2% and proportional benefits of >19%. CONCLUSION: Aspirin does not have a large proportional effect on the risk of dementia. Trials or meta-analyses with larger total numbers of incident dementia cases to increase statistical power are needed to assess whether any modest proportional 10-15% benefits of 5-7 years of aspirin use on dementia exist. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN60635500; ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT00135226.

Effects of Aspirin for Primary Prevention in Persons with Diabetes Mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. Aspirin use reduces the risk of occlusive vascular events but increases the risk of bleeding; the balance of benefits and hazards for the prevention of first cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults who had diabetes but no evident cardiovascular disease to receive aspirin at a dose of 100 mg daily or matching placebo. The primary efficacy outcome was the first serious vascular event (i.e., myocardial infarction, stroke or transient ischemic attack, or death from any vascular cause, excluding any confirmed intracranial hemorrhage). The primary safety outcome was the first major bleeding event (i.e., intracranial hemorrhage, sight-threatening bleeding event in the eye, gastrointestinal bleeding, or other serious bleeding). Secondary outcomes included gastrointestinal tract cancer. RESULTS: A total of 15,480 participants underwent randomization. During a mean follow-up of 7.4 years, serious vascular events occurred in a significantly lower percentage of participants in the aspirin group than in the placebo group (658 participants [8.5%] vs. 743 [9.6%]; rate ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 0.97; P=0.01). In contrast, major bleeding events occurred in 314 participants (4.1%) in the aspirin group, as compared with 245 (3.2%) in the placebo group (rate ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.52; P=0.003), with most of the excess being gastrointestinal bleeding and other extracranial bleeding. There was no significant difference between the aspirin group and the placebo group in the incidence of gastrointestinal tract cancer (157 participants [2.0%] and 158 [2.0%], respectively) or all cancers (897 [11.6%] and 887 [11.5%]); long-term follow-up for these outcomes is planned. CONCLUSIONS: Aspirin use prevented serious vascular events in persons who had diabetes and no evident cardiovascular disease at trial entry, but it also caused major bleeding events. The absolute benefits were largely counterbalanced by the bleeding hazard. (Funded by the British Heart Foundation and others; ASCEND Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN60635500 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00135226 .).

Effects of n-3 Fatty Acid Supplements in Diabetes Mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Increased intake of n-3 fatty acids has been associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease in observational studies, but this finding has not been confirmed in randomized trials. It remains unclear whether n-3 (also called omega-3) fatty acid supplementation has cardiovascular benefit in patients with diabetes mellitus. METHODS: We randomly assigned 15,480 patients with diabetes but without evidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease to receive 1-g capsules containing either n-3 fatty acids (fatty acid group) or matching placebo (olive oil) daily. The primary outcome was a first serious vascular event (i.e., nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke, transient ischemic attack, or vascular death, excluding confirmed intracranial hemorrhage). The secondary outcome was a first serious vascular event or any arterial revascularization. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 7.4 years (adherence rate, 76%), a serious vascular event occurred in 689 patients (8.9%) in the fatty acid group and in 712 (9.2%) in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.08; P=0.55). The composite outcome of a serious vascular event or revascularization occurred in 882 patients (11.4%) and 887 patients (11.5%), respectively (rate ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.09). Death from any cause occurred in 752 patients (9.7%) in the fatty acid group and in 788 (10.2%) in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.05). There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of nonfatal serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with diabetes without evidence of cardiovascular disease, there was no significant difference in the risk of serious vascular events between those who were assigned to receive n-3 fatty acid supplementation and those who were assigned to receive placebo. (Funded by the British Heart Foundation and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN60635500 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00135226 .).

Effects of Anacetrapib in Patients with Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease remain at high risk for cardiovascular events despite effective statin-based treatment of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. The inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) by anacetrapib reduces LDL cholesterol levels and increases high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. However, trials of other CETP inhibitors have shown neutral or adverse effects on cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 30,449 adults with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive atorvastatin therapy and who had a mean LDL cholesterol level of 61 mg per deciliter (1.58 mmol per liter), a mean non-HDL cholesterol level of 92 mg per deciliter (2.38 mmol per liter), and a mean HDL cholesterol level of 40 mg per deciliter (1.03 mmol per liter). The patients were assigned to receive either 100 mg of anacetrapib once daily (15,225 patients) or matching placebo (15,224 patients). The primary outcome was the first major coronary event, a composite of coronary death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization. RESULTS: During the median follow-up period of 4.1 years, the primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer patients in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (1640 of 15,225 patients [10.8%] vs. 1803 of 15,224 patients [11.8%]; rate ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.85 to 0.97; P=0.004). The relative difference in risk was similar across multiple prespecified subgroups. At the trial midpoint, the mean level of HDL cholesterol was higher by 43 mg per deciliter (1.12 mmol per liter) in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (a relative difference of 104%), and the mean level of non-HDL cholesterol was lower by 17 mg per deciliter (0.44 mmol per liter), a relative difference of -18%. There were no significant between-group differences in the risk of death, cancer, or other serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive statin therapy, the use of anacetrapib resulted in a lower incidence of major coronary events than the use of placebo. (Funded by Merck and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN48678192 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01252953 ; and EudraCT number, 2010-023467-18 .).

Effects of extended-release niacin with laropiprant in high-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with evidence of vascular disease are at increased risk for subsequent vascular events despite effective use of statins to lower the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level. Niacin lowers the LDL cholesterol level and raises the high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level, but its clinical efficacy and safety are uncertain. METHODS: After a prerandomization run-in phase to standardize the background statin-based LDL cholesterol-lowering therapy and to establish participants' ability to take extended-release niacin without clinically significant adverse effects, we randomly assigned 25,673 adults with vascular disease to receive 2 g of extended-release niacin and 40 mg of laropiprant or a matching placebo daily. The primary outcome was the first major vascular event (nonfatal myocardial infarction, death from coronary causes, stroke, or arterial revascularization). RESULTS: During a median follow-up period of 3.9 years, participants who were assigned to extended-release niacin-laropiprant had an LDL cholesterol level that was an average of 10 mg per deciliter (0.25 mmol per liter as measured in the central laboratory) lower and an HDL cholesterol level that was an average of 6 mg per deciliter (0.16 mmol per liter) higher than the levels in those assigned to placebo. Assignment to niacin-laropiprant, as compared with assignment to placebo, had no significant effect on the incidence of major vascular events (13.2% and 13.7% of participants with an event, respectively; rate ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.03; P=0.29). Niacin-laropiprant was associated with an increased incidence of disturbances in diabetes control that were considered to be serious (absolute excess as compared with placebo, 3.7 percentage points; P<0.001) and with an increased incidence of diabetes diagnoses (absolute excess, 1.3 percentage points; P<0.001), as well as increases in serious adverse events associated with the gastrointestinal system (absolute excess, 1.0 percentage point; P<0.001), musculoskeletal system (absolute excess, 0.7 percentage points; P<0.001), skin (absolute excess, 0.3 percentage points; P=0.003), and unexpectedly, infection (absolute excess, 1.4 percentage points; P<0.001) and bleeding (absolute excess, 0.7 percentage points; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among participants with atherosclerotic vascular disease, the addition of extended-release niacin-laropiprant to statin-based LDL cholesterol-lowering therapy did not significantly reduce the risk of major vascular events but did increase the risk of serious adverse events. (Funded by Merck and others; HPS2-THRIVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00461630.).

Effect of Fenofibrate on Progression of Diabetic Retinopathy.

BACKGROUND: Findings from cardiovascular outcome trials suggest that fenofibrate therapy may reduce the progression of diabetic retinopathy. METHODS: We recruited and followed adults with nonreferable diabetic retinopathy or maculopathy using the national Diabetic Eye Screening (DES) program in Scotland. We randomly assigned participants to receive 145-mg fenofibrate tablets or placebo (taken daily or, in those with impaired renal function, on alternate days). The primary outcome was a composite of developing referable diabetic retinopathy or maculopathy (based on Scotland's DES grading scheme) or treatment (intravitreal injection, retinal laser, vitrectomy) for retinopathy or maculopathy. RESULTS: A total of 1151 participants were randomly assigned to treatment. During a median of 4.0 years, progression to referable diabetic retinopathy or maculopathy, or treatment thereof, occurred in 131 (22.7%) of 576 participants in the fenofibrate group and 168 (29.2%) of 575 in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.91; P=0.006). In the fenofibrate group compared with the placebo group, the frequencies for any progression of retinopathy or maculopathy were 185 (32.1%) vs. 231 (40.2%); hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.90 and for the development of macular edema were 22 (3.8%) vs. 43 (7.5%); hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.84. Seventeen (3.0%) participants assigned fenofibrate and 28 (4.9%) assigned placebo were given treatment for retinopathy (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.31 to 1.06). There was no effect on visual function, quality of life, or visual acuity. Trial-averaged estimated glomerular filtration rate was 7.9 (95% CI, 6.8 to 9.1) ml/min/1.73 m2 lower in participants in the fenofibrate group compared with the placebo group. Serious adverse events occurred in 208 (36.1%) participants allocated fenofibrate and 204 (35.5%) participants allocated placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Fenofibrate reduced progression of diabetic retinopathy compared with placebo among participants with early retinal changes. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03439345; ISRCTN number, ISRCTN15073006.).

Clinical trial results in context: comparison of baseline characteristics and outcomes of 38,510 RECOVERY trial participants versus a reference population of 346,271 people hospitalised with COVID-19 in England.

BACKGROUND: Randomised trials are essential to reliably assess medical interventions. Nevertheless, interpretation of such studies, particularly when considering absolute effects, is enhanced by understanding how the trial population may differ from the populations it aims to represent. METHODS: We compared baseline characteristics and mortality of RECOVERY participants recruited in England (n = 38,510) with a reference population hospitalised with COVID-19 in England (n = 346,271) from March 2020 to November 2021. We used linked hospitalisation and mortality data for both cohorts to extract demographics, comorbidity/frailty scores, and crude and age- and sex-adjusted 28-day all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Demographics of RECOVERY participants were broadly similar to the reference population, but RECOVERY participants were younger (mean age [standard deviation]: RECOVERY 62.6 [15.3] vs reference 65.7 [18.5] years) and less frequently female (37% vs 45%). Comorbidity and frailty scores were lower in RECOVERY, but differences were attenuated after age stratification. Age- and sex-adjusted 28-day mortality declined over time but was similar between cohorts across the study period (RECOVERY 23.7% [95% confidence interval: 23.3-24.1%]; vs reference 24.8% [24.6-25.0%]), except during the first pandemic wave in the UK (March-May 2020) when adjusted mortality was lower in RECOVERY. CONCLUSIONS: Adjusted 28-day mortality in RECOVERY was similar to a nationwide reference population of patients admitted with COVID-19 in England during the same period but varied substantially over time in both cohorts. Therefore, the absolute effect estimates from RECOVERY were broadly applicable to the target population at the time but should be interpreted in the light of current mortality estimates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN50189673- Feb. 04, 2020, NCT04381936- May 11, 2020.

ASCEND-Eye: Rationale, design and baseline characteristics for a sub-study of the ASCEND randomised trial, exploring the effects of aspirin and omega-3 fatty acids on diabetic retinopathy and age-related macular degeneration.

Background: Aspirin and omega-3 fatty acids (FAs) have potential disease-modifying roles in diabetic retinopathy (DR) and age-related macular degeneration (AMD), but randomized evidence of these effects is limited. We present the rationale and baseline characteristics of ASCEND-Eye, a sub-study of the double-blind, 2x2 factorial design, randomized placebo-controlled ASCEND (A Study of Cardiovascular Events iN Diabetes) trial of 100 mg aspirin daily and, separately, 1g omega-3 FAs daily for the primary prevention of serious cardiovascular events, in 15,480 British adults, aged 40 years or older with diabetes. Methods: Eye events will be derived from three sources: 1) participant follow-up questionnaires from ASCEND, 2) electronic NHS Diabetic Eye Screening Programme (DESP) data and 3) responses to the National Eye Institute's Visual Function Questionnaire-25 (NEI-VFQ-25) sent to a subset of participants after the main trial ended. Analytic cohorts and outcomes relevant to these data sources are described. The primary outcome is referable diabetic eye disease, a secondary outcome is incident AMD events. Results: Participant-reported events were ascertained for the full cohort of randomized individuals who were followed up over 7.4 years in ASCEND (n = 15,480). Linked DESP data were available for 48% of those (n = 7360), and 57% completed the NEI-VFQ-25 (n = 8839). The baseline characteristics of these three cohorts are presented. Discussion: Establishing the risks and benefits of drugs commonly taken by people with diabetes, the elderly, or both, and finding new treatments for DR and AMD is important. ASCEND-Eye provides the opportunity to evaluate the effect of aspirin and, separately, omega-3 FAs for both conditions. Study registration: Eudract No. 2004-000991-15; Multicentre Research Ethics Committee Ref No. 03/8/087; ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT00135226; ISRCTN No. ISRCTN60635500.

Reliability of major bleeding events in UK routine data versus clinical trial adjudicated follow-up data.

OBJECTIVE: To assess how reliable UK routine data are for ascertaining major bleeding events compared with adjudicated follow-up. METHODS: The ASCEND (A Study of Cardiovascular Events iN Diabetes) primary prevention trial randomised 15 480 UK people with diabetes to aspirin versus matching placebo. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding (including intracranial haemorrhage, sight-threatening eye bleeding, serious gastrointestinal bleeding and other major bleeding (epistaxis, haemoptysis, haematuria, vaginal and other bleeding)) ascertained by direct-participant mail-based follow-up, with >90% of outcomes undergoing adjudication. Nearly all participants were linked to routinely collected hospitalisation and death data (ie, routine data). An algorithm categorised bleeding events from routine data as major/minor. Kappa statistics were used to assess agreement between data sources, and randomised comparisons were re-run using routine data. RESULTS: When adjudicated follow-up and routine data were compared, there was agreement for 318 major bleeding events, with routine data identifying 281 additional-potential events, and not identifying 241 participant-reported events (kappa 0.53, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.57). Repeating ASCEND's randomised comparisons using routine data only found estimated relative and absolute effects of allocation to aspirin versus placebo on major bleeding similar to adjudicated follow-up (adjudicated follow-up: aspirin 314 (4.1%) vs placebo 245 (3.2%); rate ratio (RR) 1.29, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.52; absolute excess +6.3/5000 person-years (mean SE±2.1); vs routine data: 327 (4.2%) vs 272 (3.5%); RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.41; absolute excess +5.0/5000 (±2.2)). CONCLUSIONS: Analyses of the ASCEND randomised trial found that major bleeding events ascertained via UK routine data sources provided relative and absolute treatment effects similar to adjudicated follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN60635500; NCT00135226.

The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with simvastatin plus ezetimibe in patients with chronic kidney disease (Study of Heart and Renal Protection): a randomised placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Lowering LDL cholesterol with statin regimens reduces the risk of myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, and the need for coronary revascularisation in people without kidney disease, but its effects in people with moderate-to-severe kidney disease are uncertain. The SHARP trial aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the combination of simvastatin plus ezetimibe in such patients. METHODS: This randomised double-blind trial included 9270 patients with chronic kidney disease (3023 on dialysis and 6247 not) with no known history of myocardial infarction or coronary revascularisation. Patients were randomly assigned to simvastatin 20 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg daily versus matching placebo. The key prespecified outcome was first major atherosclerotic event (non-fatal myocardial infarction or coronary death, non-haemorrhagic stroke, or any arterial revascularisation procedure). All analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00125593, and ISRCTN54137607. FINDINGS: 4650 patients were assigned to receive simvastatin plus ezetimibe and 4620 to placebo. Allocation to simvastatin plus ezetimibe yielded an average LDL cholesterol difference of 0·85 mmol/L (SE 0·02; with about two-thirds compliance) during a median follow-up of 4·9 years and produced a 17% proportional reduction in major atherosclerotic events (526 [11·3%] simvastatin plus ezetimibe vs 619 [13·4%] placebo; rate ratio [RR] 0·83, 95% CI 0·74-0·94; log-rank p=0·0021). Non-significantly fewer patients allocated to simvastatin plus ezetimibe had a non-fatal myocardial infarction or died from coronary heart disease (213 [4·6%] vs 230 [5·0%]; RR 0·92, 95% CI 0·76-1·11; p=0·37) and there were significant reductions in non-haemorrhagic stroke (131 [2·8%] vs 174 [3·8%]; RR 0·75, 95% CI 0·60-0·94; p=0·01) and arterial revascularisation procedures (284 [6·1%] vs 352 [7·6%]; RR 0·79, 95% CI 0·68-0·93; p=0·0036). After weighting for subgroup-specific reductions in LDL cholesterol, there was no good evidence that the proportional effects on major atherosclerotic events differed from the summary rate ratio in any subgroup examined, and, in particular, they were similar in patients on dialysis and those who were not. The excess risk of myopathy was only two per 10,000 patients per year of treatment with this combination (9 [0·2%] vs 5 [0·1%]). There was no evidence of excess risks of hepatitis (21 [0·5%] vs 18 [0·4%]), gallstones (106 [2·3%] vs 106 [2·3%]), or cancer (438 [9·4%] vs 439 [9·5%], p=0·89) and there was no significant excess of death from any non-vascular cause (668 [14·4%] vs 612 [13·2%], p=0·13). INTERPRETATION: Reduction of LDL cholesterol with simvastatin 20 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg daily safely reduced the incidence of major atherosclerotic events in a wide range of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease. FUNDING: Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals; Australian National Health and Medical Research Council; British Heart Foundation; UK Medical Research Council.

Intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol with 80 mg versus 20 mg simvastatin daily in 12,064 survivors of myocardial infarction: a double-blind randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Lowering of LDL cholesterol reduces major vascular events, but whether more intensive therapy safely produces extra benefits is uncertain. We aimed to establish efficacy and safety of more intensive statin treatment in patients at high cardiovascular risk. METHODS: We undertook a double-blind randomised trial in 12,064 men and women aged 18-80 years with a history of myocardial infarction. Participants were either currently on or had clear indication for statin therapy, and had a total cholesterol concentration of at least 3·5 mmol/L if already on a statin or 4·5 mmol/L if not. Randomisation to either 80 mg or 20 mg simvastatin daily was done centrally using a minimisation algorithm. Participants were assessed at 2, 4, 8, and 12 months after randomisation and then every 6 months until final follow-up. The primary endpoint was major vascular events, defined as coronary death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or arterial revascularisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN74348595. FINDINGS: 6031 participants were allocated 80 mg simvastatin daily, and 6033 allocated 20 mg simvastatin daily. During a mean follow-up of 6·7 (SD 1·5) years, allocation to 80 mg simvastatin produced an average 0·35 (SE 0·01) mmol/L greater reduction in LDL cholesterol compared with allocation to 20 mg. Major vascular events occurred in 1477 (24·5%) participants allocated 80 mg simvastatin versus 1553 (25·7%) of those allocated 20 mg, corresponding to a 6% proportional reduction (risk ratio 0·94, 95% CI 0·88-1·01; p=0·10). There were no apparent differences in numbers of haemorrhagic strokes (24 [0·4%] vs 25 [0·4%]) or deaths attributed to vascular (565 [9·4%] vs 572 [9·5%]) or non-vascular (399 [6·6%] vs 398 [6·6%]) causes. Compared with two (0·03%) cases of myopathy in patients taking 20 mg simvastatin daily, there were 53 (0·9%) cases in the 80 mg group. INTERPRETATION: The 6% (SE 3·5%) reduction in major vascular events with a further 0·35 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol in our trial is consistent with previous trials. Myopathy was increased with 80 mg simvastatin daily, but intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol can be achieved safely with other regimens. FUNDING: Merck; The Clinical Trial Service Unit also receives funding from the UK Medical Research Council and the British Heart Foundation.

Comparison of the Accuracy and Completeness of Records of Serious Vascular Events in Routinely Collected Data vs Clinical Trial-Adjudicated Direct Follow-up Data in the UK: Secondary Analysis of the ASCEND Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Routinely collected data could substantially decrease the cost of conducting trials. Objective: To assess the accuracy and completeness of UK routine data for ascertaining serious vascular events (SVEs) compared with adjudicated follow-up data. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. From June 24, 2005, to July 28, 2011, the ASCEND (A Study of Cardiovascular Events in Diabetes) primary prevention trial used mail-based methods to randomize people with diabetes without evidence of atherosclerotic vascular disease using a 2 × 2 factorial design to aspirin and/or ω-fatty acids vs matching placebo in the UK. Direct participant mail-based follow-up was the main source of outcome data, with more than 90% of the primary outcome events undergoing adjudication. Follow-up was completed on July 31, 2017. In parallel, more than 99% of participants were linked to routinely collected hospital admission and death registry data (ie, routine data), enabling post hoc randomized comparisons of different sources of outcome data (conducted from September 1, 2018, to October 1, 2021). Interventions: Random allocation to 100 mg of aspirin once daily vs matching placebo and separately to 1 g of ω-3 fatty acids once daily vs placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome consisted of SVEs (a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack [TIA], or vascular death, excluding hemorrhagic stroke). Results: A total of 15 480 participants were randomized (mean [SD] age, 63 [9] years; 9684 [62.6%] men) and followed up for a mean (SD) of 7.4 (1.8) years. For SVEs, agreement between adjudicated direct follow-up and routine data sources was strong (1401 vs 1127 events; κ = 0.78 [95% CI, 0.76-0.80]; sensitivity, 72.0% [95% CI, 69.7%-74.4%]; specificity, 99.2% [95% CI, 99.0%-99.3%]), and sensitivity improved for SVEs excluding transient ischemic attack (1129 vs 1026 events; sensitivity, 80.6% [95% CI, 78.3%-82.9%]). Rate ratios for the aspirin-randomized comparison for adjudicated direct follow-up vs follow-up solely through routine data alone were 0.88 (95% CI, 0.79-0.97) vs 0.91 (95% CI, 0.81-1.02) for the primary outcome and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.82-1.03) vs 0.91 (95% CI, 0.80-1.02) for SVEs excluding TIA. Results were similar for the ω-3 fatty acid comparison, and adjudication did not seem to markedly change rate ratios. Conclusions and Relevance: Post hoc analyses of the ASCEND trial suggest that routinely collected hospital admission and death registry data in the UK could be used as the sole method of follow-up for myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke resulting in hospitalization, vascular death, and arterial revascularization in primary prevention cardiovascular trials, without the need for verification by clinical adjudication.

Effects of homocysteine-lowering with folic acid plus vitamin B12 vs placebo on mortality and major morbidity in myocardial infarction survivors: a randomized trial.

CONTEXT: Blood homocysteine levels are positively associated with cardiovascular disease, but it is uncertain whether the association is causal. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of reducing homocysteine levels with folic acid and vitamin B(12) on vascular and nonvascular outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Double-blind randomized controlled trial of 12,064 survivors of myocardial infarction in secondary care hospitals in the United Kingdom between 1998 and 2008. INTERVENTIONS: 2 mg folic acid plus 1 mg vitamin B(12) daily vs matching placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: First major vascular event, defined as major coronary event (coronary death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization), fatal or nonfatal stroke, or noncoronary revascularization. RESULTS: Allocation to the study vitamins reduced homocysteine by a mean of 3.8 micromol/L (28%). During 6.7 years of follow-up, major vascular events occurred in 1537 of 6033 participants (25.5%) allocated folic acid plus vitamin B(12) vs 1493 of 6031 participants (24.8%) allocated placebo (risk ratio [RR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-1.12; P = .28). There were no apparent effects on major coronary events (vitamins, 1229 [20.4%], vs placebo, 1185 [19.6%]; RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.97-1.13), stroke (vitamins, 269 [4.5%], vs placebo, 265 [4.4%]; RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86-1.21), or noncoronary revascularizations (vitamins, 178 [3.0%], vs placebo, 152 [2.5%]; RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.95-1.46). Nor were there significant differences in the numbers of deaths attributed to vascular causes (vitamins, 578 [9.6%], vs placebo, 559 [9.3%]) or nonvascular causes (vitamins, 405 [6.7%], vs placebo, 392 [6.5%]) or in the incidence of any cancer (vitamins, 678 [11.2%], vs placebo, 639 [10.6%]). CONCLUSION: Substantial long-term reductions in blood homocysteine levels with folic acid and vitamin B(12) supplementation did not have beneficial effects on vascular outcomes but were also not associated with adverse effects on cancer incidence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN74348595.