AHA Scientific Sessions 2016

CSL112, a plasma-derived apolipoprotein A-1 (apoA-1) that enhances cholesterol efflux capacity, was found safe for use after acute MI in a manufacturer-sponsored phase IIb trial, Michael Gibson, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Cholesterol efflux capacity is a measure of HDL cholesterol’s ability to remove excess cholesterol from atherosclerotic plaque for transport to the liver. Drugs that improve this capacity rather than simply raising HDL cholesterol are expected to reduce plaque burden and stabilize vulnerable plaque immediately following acute MI, when cholesterol efflux is significantly impaired. But they have not been tested in this patient population until now, said Dr. Gibson of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard, both in Boston.

An earlier prototype formulation of CSL112 was discontinued because of concerns about transient elevations in liver enzymes and the potential for renal toxicity due to the agent’s high sucrose content. Dr. Gibson and his associates in the AEGIS-1 trial (ApoA-1 Event Reducing in Ischemic Syndromes 1) now report their findings for the current formulation of CSL112, which contains lower phosphatidylcholine and lower sucrose levels, in 1,258 patients who had MI during the preceding week and who had normal or only mildly impaired renal function. These results were reported at the meeting and simultaneously published online in Circulation (2016, Nov 15. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATION AHA.116.025687).

The study participants were enrolled in 16 countries during an 11-month period. They were randomly assigned to receive low-dose (2 g) CSL112 (419 patients), high-dose (6 g) CSL112 (421 patients), or a matching placebo (418 patients) via IV infusion every week for 4 consecutive weeks. The median duration of follow-up at the time of this report was 7.5 months.

The two primary safety end points – the rate of hepatic impairment and the rate of renal impairment during treatment – were not significantly different across the three study groups. Hepatic impairment developed in 1.0% of the low-dose group, 0.5% of the high-dose group, and 0.0% of the placebo group. Renal impairment developed in 0.0% of the low-dose group, 0.7% of the high-dose group, and 0.2% of the placebo group.

Similarly, rates of major adverse cardiovascular events were comparable across the three study groups, as were rates of any grade of bleeding, rates of serious and life-threatening adverse events, and rates of adverse events leading to drug discontinuation.

This study focused on safety and tolerability and was not designed or powered to assess efficacy. Nevertheless, CSL112 caused a substantial and dose-dependent increase in both apoA-1 and cholesterol efflux capacity. The low-dose drug raised total cholesterol efflux capacity by 1.87-fold, and the high-dose drug raised it 2.45-fold.

As the first study to establish the safety and feasibility of adding CSL112 to standard care for acute MI, this trial demonstrates that an adequately powered, multicenter, phase III trial is warranted, Dr. Gibson said.

The current formulation of CSL112 didn’t provoke hepatic toxicity, and even though it was given shortly after contrast studies in MI patients, it also didn’t provoke renal toxicity. “This demonstrates the feasibility of administering CSL112 to patients with MI who have normal renal function or mild renal impairment shortly after angiography. A study in MI patients who have moderate renal impairment is now under way,” he noted.
 

This study was sponsored by CSL Behring, maker of CSL112. Dr. Gibson and his associates reported financial ties to Behring and numerous other industry sources.

CSL112, a plasma-derived apolipoprotein A-1 (apoA-1) that enhances cholesterol efflux capacity, was found safe for use after acute MI in a manufacturer-sponsored phase IIb trial, Michael Gibson, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Cholesterol efflux capacity is a measure of HDL cholesterol’s ability to remove excess cholesterol from atherosclerotic plaque for transport to the liver. Drugs that improve this capacity rather than simply raising HDL cholesterol are expected to reduce plaque burden and stabilize vulnerable plaque immediately following acute MI, when cholesterol efflux is significantly impaired. But they have not been tested in this patient population until now, said Dr. Gibson of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard, both in Boston.

An earlier prototype formulation of CSL112 was discontinued because of concerns about transient elevations in liver enzymes and the potential for renal toxicity due to the agent’s high sucrose content. Dr. Gibson and his associates in the AEGIS-1 trial (ApoA-1 Event Reducing in Ischemic Syndromes 1) now report their findings for the current formulation of CSL112, which contains lower phosphatidylcholine and lower sucrose levels, in 1,258 patients who had MI during the preceding week and who had normal or only mildly impaired renal function. These results were reported at the meeting and simultaneously published online in Circulation (2016, Nov 15. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATION AHA.116.025687).

The study participants were enrolled in 16 countries during an 11-month period. They were randomly assigned to receive low-dose (2 g) CSL112 (419 patients), high-dose (6 g) CSL112 (421 patients), or a matching placebo (418 patients) via IV infusion every week for 4 consecutive weeks. The median duration of follow-up at the time of this report was 7.5 months.

The two primary safety end points – the rate of hepatic impairment and the rate of renal impairment during treatment – were not significantly different across the three study groups. Hepatic impairment developed in 1.0% of the low-dose group, 0.5% of the high-dose group, and 0.0% of the placebo group. Renal impairment developed in 0.0% of the low-dose group, 0.7% of the high-dose group, and 0.2% of the placebo group.

Similarly, rates of major adverse cardiovascular events were comparable across the three study groups, as were rates of any grade of bleeding, rates of serious and life-threatening adverse events, and rates of adverse events leading to drug discontinuation.

This study focused on safety and tolerability and was not designed or powered to assess efficacy. Nevertheless, CSL112 caused a substantial and dose-dependent increase in both apoA-1 and cholesterol efflux capacity. The low-dose drug raised total cholesterol efflux capacity by 1.87-fold, and the high-dose drug raised it 2.45-fold.

As the first study to establish the safety and feasibility of adding CSL112 to standard care for acute MI, this trial demonstrates that an adequately powered, multicenter, phase III trial is warranted, Dr. Gibson said.

The current formulation of CSL112 didn’t provoke hepatic toxicity, and even though it was given shortly after contrast studies in MI patients, it also didn’t provoke renal toxicity. “This demonstrates the feasibility of administering CSL112 to patients with MI who have normal renal function or mild renal impairment shortly after angiography. A study in MI patients who have moderate renal impairment is now under way,” he noted.
 

This study was sponsored by CSL Behring, maker of CSL112. Dr. Gibson and his associates reported financial ties to Behring and numerous other industry sources.

CSL112, a plasma-derived apolipoprotein A-1 (apoA-1) that enhances cholesterol efflux capacity, was found safe for use after acute MI in a manufacturer-sponsored phase IIb trial, Michael Gibson, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Cholesterol efflux capacity is a measure of HDL cholesterol’s ability to remove excess cholesterol from atherosclerotic plaque for transport to the liver. Drugs that improve this capacity rather than simply raising HDL cholesterol are expected to reduce plaque burden and stabilize vulnerable plaque immediately following acute MI, when cholesterol efflux is significantly impaired. But they have not been tested in this patient population until now, said Dr. Gibson of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard, both in Boston.

An earlier prototype formulation of CSL112 was discontinued because of concerns about transient elevations in liver enzymes and the potential for renal toxicity due to the agent’s high sucrose content. Dr. Gibson and his associates in the AEGIS-1 trial (ApoA-1 Event Reducing in Ischemic Syndromes 1) now report their findings for the current formulation of CSL112, which contains lower phosphatidylcholine and lower sucrose levels, in 1,258 patients who had MI during the preceding week and who had normal or only mildly impaired renal function. These results were reported at the meeting and simultaneously published online in Circulation (2016, Nov 15. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATION AHA.116.025687).

The study participants were enrolled in 16 countries during an 11-month period. They were randomly assigned to receive low-dose (2 g) CSL112 (419 patients), high-dose (6 g) CSL112 (421 patients), or a matching placebo (418 patients) via IV infusion every week for 4 consecutive weeks. The median duration of follow-up at the time of this report was 7.5 months.

The two primary safety end points – the rate of hepatic impairment and the rate of renal impairment during treatment – were not significantly different across the three study groups. Hepatic impairment developed in 1.0% of the low-dose group, 0.5% of the high-dose group, and 0.0% of the placebo group. Renal impairment developed in 0.0% of the low-dose group, 0.7% of the high-dose group, and 0.2% of the placebo group.

Similarly, rates of major adverse cardiovascular events were comparable across the three study groups, as were rates of any grade of bleeding, rates of serious and life-threatening adverse events, and rates of adverse events leading to drug discontinuation.

This study focused on safety and tolerability and was not designed or powered to assess efficacy. Nevertheless, CSL112 caused a substantial and dose-dependent increase in both apoA-1 and cholesterol efflux capacity. The low-dose drug raised total cholesterol efflux capacity by 1.87-fold, and the high-dose drug raised it 2.45-fold.

As the first study to establish the safety and feasibility of adding CSL112 to standard care for acute MI, this trial demonstrates that an adequately powered, multicenter, phase III trial is warranted, Dr. Gibson said.

The current formulation of CSL112 didn’t provoke hepatic toxicity, and even though it was given shortly after contrast studies in MI patients, it also didn’t provoke renal toxicity. “This demonstrates the feasibility of administering CSL112 to patients with MI who have normal renal function or mild renal impairment shortly after angiography. A study in MI patients who have moderate renal impairment is now under way,” he noted.
 

This study was sponsored by CSL Behring, maker of CSL112. Dr. Gibson and his associates reported financial ties to Behring and numerous other industry sources.

Metrics used by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to determine penalties for heart failure hospital readmissions are not associated with quality of care or overall clinical outcomes, according to data presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

Ambarish Pandey, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and his colleagues analyzed data from centers participating in the American Heart Association’s Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry linked to Medicare claims from July 2008 to June 2011. Centers were stratified as having low risk-adjusted readmission rates and high risk-adjusted readmission rates based on publicly available data from 2013.

The study included 171 centers with 43,143 patients. Centers were almost evenly split between low- and high-risk–adjusted 30-day readmission rates, with just a few more (51%) falling in the low-risk–adjusted category.

Performance was nearly equal (95.7% for centers with a low risk-adjusted readmission rate vs. 96.5% for those with high risk-adjusted rate) for median adherence to all performance measures, as was the case for median percentage of defect-free care (90.0% vs. 91.1%, respectively) and composite 1-year outcome of death or all-cause readmission rates (median 62.9% vs. 65.3%, respectively). The higher readmission group had higher 1-year all-cause readmission rates (median, 59.1% vs. 54.7%), Dr. Pandey and his colleagues reported in the study that was published simultaneously in JACC: Heart Failure (2016 Nov 15. doi. org/10.1016/j.jchf.2016). One-year mortality rates were lower in the higher readmission group with a trend toward statistical significance (median, 28.2% vs. 31.7%; P = 0.07).

Taken together, the findings suggest the 30-day readmission metrics currently used by CMS to determine readmission penalties are not associated with quality of care or overall clinical outcomes, Dr. Pandey and his colleagues wrote. Results showing higher 30-day readmissions do not necessarily reflect poor quality of care and may be related to other factors.

“These findings question the usefulness of the [hospital readmission reduction program] metric in identifying and penalizing hospitals with low quality of care,” Dr. Pandey wrote, adding that the findings were consistent with previous studies that have demonstrated a lack of association between in-hospital quality of care and 30-day readmission rates.

CMS implemented the federal Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) in 2012 to provide financial incentives for hospitals to reduce readmissions. Under the program, CMS uses claims data to determine whether readmission rates for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and pneumonia at eligible hospitals are higher than would be predicted by CMS models. Centers with higher than expected readmission rates face up to a 3% reimbursement penalty.

agallegos@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @legal_med

Metrics used by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to determine penalties for heart failure hospital readmissions are not associated with quality of care or overall clinical outcomes, according to data presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

Ambarish Pandey, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and his colleagues analyzed data from centers participating in the American Heart Association’s Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry linked to Medicare claims from July 2008 to June 2011. Centers were stratified as having low risk-adjusted readmission rates and high risk-adjusted readmission rates based on publicly available data from 2013.

The study included 171 centers with 43,143 patients. Centers were almost evenly split between low- and high-risk–adjusted 30-day readmission rates, with just a few more (51%) falling in the low-risk–adjusted category.

Performance was nearly equal (95.7% for centers with a low risk-adjusted readmission rate vs. 96.5% for those with high risk-adjusted rate) for median adherence to all performance measures, as was the case for median percentage of defect-free care (90.0% vs. 91.1%, respectively) and composite 1-year outcome of death or all-cause readmission rates (median 62.9% vs. 65.3%, respectively). The higher readmission group had higher 1-year all-cause readmission rates (median, 59.1% vs. 54.7%), Dr. Pandey and his colleagues reported in the study that was published simultaneously in JACC: Heart Failure (2016 Nov 15. doi. org/10.1016/j.jchf.2016). One-year mortality rates were lower in the higher readmission group with a trend toward statistical significance (median, 28.2% vs. 31.7%; P = 0.07).

Taken together, the findings suggest the 30-day readmission metrics currently used by CMS to determine readmission penalties are not associated with quality of care or overall clinical outcomes, Dr. Pandey and his colleagues wrote. Results showing higher 30-day readmissions do not necessarily reflect poor quality of care and may be related to other factors.

“These findings question the usefulness of the [hospital readmission reduction program] metric in identifying and penalizing hospitals with low quality of care,” Dr. Pandey wrote, adding that the findings were consistent with previous studies that have demonstrated a lack of association between in-hospital quality of care and 30-day readmission rates.

CMS implemented the federal Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) in 2012 to provide financial incentives for hospitals to reduce readmissions. Under the program, CMS uses claims data to determine whether readmission rates for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and pneumonia at eligible hospitals are higher than would be predicted by CMS models. Centers with higher than expected readmission rates face up to a 3% reimbursement penalty.

agallegos@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @legal_med

Metrics used by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to determine penalties for heart failure hospital readmissions are not associated with quality of care or overall clinical outcomes, according to data presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

Ambarish Pandey, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and his colleagues analyzed data from centers participating in the American Heart Association’s Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry linked to Medicare claims from July 2008 to June 2011. Centers were stratified as having low risk-adjusted readmission rates and high risk-adjusted readmission rates based on publicly available data from 2013.

The study included 171 centers with 43,143 patients. Centers were almost evenly split between low- and high-risk–adjusted 30-day readmission rates, with just a few more (51%) falling in the low-risk–adjusted category.

Performance was nearly equal (95.7% for centers with a low risk-adjusted readmission rate vs. 96.5% for those with high risk-adjusted rate) for median adherence to all performance measures, as was the case for median percentage of defect-free care (90.0% vs. 91.1%, respectively) and composite 1-year outcome of death or all-cause readmission rates (median 62.9% vs. 65.3%, respectively). The higher readmission group had higher 1-year all-cause readmission rates (median, 59.1% vs. 54.7%), Dr. Pandey and his colleagues reported in the study that was published simultaneously in JACC: Heart Failure (2016 Nov 15. doi. org/10.1016/j.jchf.2016). One-year mortality rates were lower in the higher readmission group with a trend toward statistical significance (median, 28.2% vs. 31.7%; P = 0.07).

Taken together, the findings suggest the 30-day readmission metrics currently used by CMS to determine readmission penalties are not associated with quality of care or overall clinical outcomes, Dr. Pandey and his colleagues wrote. Results showing higher 30-day readmissions do not necessarily reflect poor quality of care and may be related to other factors.

“These findings question the usefulness of the [hospital readmission reduction program] metric in identifying and penalizing hospitals with low quality of care,” Dr. Pandey wrote, adding that the findings were consistent with previous studies that have demonstrated a lack of association between in-hospital quality of care and 30-day readmission rates.

CMS implemented the federal Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) in 2012 to provide financial incentives for hospitals to reduce readmissions. Under the program, CMS uses claims data to determine whether readmission rates for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and pneumonia at eligible hospitals are higher than would be predicted by CMS models. Centers with higher than expected readmission rates face up to a 3% reimbursement penalty.

agallegos@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @legal_med

NEW ORLEANS – The puzzle of how to safely prevent thrombotic events in patients with atrial fibrillation who receive a coronary stent now has a little more clarity in the era of new oral anticoagulants.

The first randomized trial to compare the safety of a new oral anticoagulant (NOAC, in this case rivaroxaban) against warfarin when paired with one or more antiplatelet drugs showed that the NOAC edged out warfarin for safety by cutting the rate of clinically significant bleeding events while preventing thrombotic events roughly as well as warfarin.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

NEW ORLEANS – The puzzle of how to safely prevent thrombotic events in patients with atrial fibrillation who receive a coronary stent now has a little more clarity in the era of new oral anticoagulants.

The first randomized trial to compare the safety of a new oral anticoagulant (NOAC, in this case rivaroxaban) against warfarin when paired with one or more antiplatelet drugs showed that the NOAC edged out warfarin for safety by cutting the rate of clinically significant bleeding events while preventing thrombotic events roughly as well as warfarin.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

NEW ORLEANS – The puzzle of how to safely prevent thrombotic events in patients with atrial fibrillation who receive a coronary stent now has a little more clarity in the era of new oral anticoagulants.

The first randomized trial to compare the safety of a new oral anticoagulant (NOAC, in this case rivaroxaban) against warfarin when paired with one or more antiplatelet drugs showed that the NOAC edged out warfarin for safety by cutting the rate of clinically significant bleeding events while preventing thrombotic events roughly as well as warfarin.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

NEW ORLEANS – Patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery do not see any 5-year survival advantage when their surgeon uses both internal mammary (thoracic) arteries for grafting rather than just one of them along with a vein, finds an interim analysis from the randomized Arterial Revascularization Trial (ART).

Overall, about 8.5% of the 3,102 patients randomized had died 5 years after surgery, with no significant difference between the bilateral graft and single graft groups, according to data reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions and simultaneously published (N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 14. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1610021). The former had roughly triple the rate of sternal reconstruction, mainly driven by complications in insulin-dependent diabetes patients having high body mass index.

Pointed questions

The lack of difference was possibly due to a very high level of guideline-based medical therapy in the trial (which may have especially protected the vein grafts) or to the fact that the annual failure rate of vein grafts is modest and steady up to 5 years but accelerates thereafter, Dr. Taggart proposed. The trial’s primary outcome of 10-year survival, expected in 2018, will likely differ, speculated Dr. Sellke, who is also program chair for the AHA scientific sessions.

“Do you think multiple arterial grafting is superior to single internal mammary artery grafting considering the lack of improvement in survival and other outcomes in the study, with the increase in sternal wound infections?” he asked.

“I personally, if I needed the operation, would insist on having bilateral internal mammary artery grafts done by an experienced operator because it is totally counterintuitive to believe that having more patent grafts in your heart at 10 to 20 years of follow-up is of no benefit,” Dr. Taggart maintained.

When data meet clinical practice

It may require time for the benefit of the bilateral artery graft to emerge, he agreed. “I’m undeterred from my belief that ... in patients who are getting CABG done in their 40s or 50s or early 60s, betting on a graft that’s going to outperform vein grafts is the better strategy.”

Until the trial’s 10-year results become available, physicians may wish to put these interim results in the context when counseling patients, according to Dr. Gardner.

“We have indisputable evidence that arterial grafts have better long-term patency than vein grafts,” he elaborated. “If we had a very sophisticated patient, we might tell them that we were a little surprised that this head-to-head trial of single versus double didn’t show any survival benefit at 5 years, but we still are persuaded by the data that shows the better patency, and we think in the situation that the patient’s in, that we would still recommend a double mammary, assuming that the patient doesn’t have comorbidities that would make that more dangerous.”

Trial details

ART enrolled patients from 28 cardiac surgical centers in seven countries. The patients, all of whom had multivessel coronary disease and were scheduled to undergo CABG, were randomized evenly to single or bilateral internal thoracic artery grafts.

The interim results showed differences in nonadherence to the randomized operation: 2.4% of patients in the single graft group ultimately underwent got bilateral grafts, whereas 14% of patients in the bilateral graft group ultimately got a single graft.

“This raises questions about how experienced some surgeons were with the use of bilateral internal mammary artery grafts,” Dr. Taggart commented.

At 5 years of follow-up, 8.7% of patients in the bilateral graft group and 8.4% of patients in the single graft group had died, a nonsignificant difference. “Those mortalities are similar to what has been observed in other contemporary trials of CABG,” he noted. There was no difference between diabetic and nondiabetic patients with respect to this outcome.

The rate of the composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was 12.2% in the bilateral graft group and 12.7% in the single graft group, also a nonsignificant difference.

On the other hand, patients in the bilateral graft group had higher rates of sternal wound complications (3.5% vs. 1.9%; P = .005) and sternal reconstruction (1.9% vs. 0.6%; P = .002).

The groups were statistically indistinguishable with respect to rates of mortality, major bleeding, or need for repeat revascularization, as well as angina status and quality of life measures, according to Dr. Taggart, who disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest.

NEW ORLEANS – Patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery do not see any 5-year survival advantage when their surgeon uses both internal mammary (thoracic) arteries for grafting rather than just one of them along with a vein, finds an interim analysis from the randomized Arterial Revascularization Trial (ART).

Overall, about 8.5% of the 3,102 patients randomized had died 5 years after surgery, with no significant difference between the bilateral graft and single graft groups, according to data reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions and simultaneously published (N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 14. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1610021). The former had roughly triple the rate of sternal reconstruction, mainly driven by complications in insulin-dependent diabetes patients having high body mass index.

Pointed questions

The lack of difference was possibly due to a very high level of guideline-based medical therapy in the trial (which may have especially protected the vein grafts) or to the fact that the annual failure rate of vein grafts is modest and steady up to 5 years but accelerates thereafter, Dr. Taggart proposed. The trial’s primary outcome of 10-year survival, expected in 2018, will likely differ, speculated Dr. Sellke, who is also program chair for the AHA scientific sessions.

“Do you think multiple arterial grafting is superior to single internal mammary artery grafting considering the lack of improvement in survival and other outcomes in the study, with the increase in sternal wound infections?” he asked.

“I personally, if I needed the operation, would insist on having bilateral internal mammary artery grafts done by an experienced operator because it is totally counterintuitive to believe that having more patent grafts in your heart at 10 to 20 years of follow-up is of no benefit,” Dr. Taggart maintained.

When data meet clinical practice

It may require time for the benefit of the bilateral artery graft to emerge, he agreed. “I’m undeterred from my belief that ... in patients who are getting CABG done in their 40s or 50s or early 60s, betting on a graft that’s going to outperform vein grafts is the better strategy.”

Until the trial’s 10-year results become available, physicians may wish to put these interim results in the context when counseling patients, according to Dr. Gardner.

“We have indisputable evidence that arterial grafts have better long-term patency than vein grafts,” he elaborated. “If we had a very sophisticated patient, we might tell them that we were a little surprised that this head-to-head trial of single versus double didn’t show any survival benefit at 5 years, but we still are persuaded by the data that shows the better patency, and we think in the situation that the patient’s in, that we would still recommend a double mammary, assuming that the patient doesn’t have comorbidities that would make that more dangerous.”

Trial details

ART enrolled patients from 28 cardiac surgical centers in seven countries. The patients, all of whom had multivessel coronary disease and were scheduled to undergo CABG, were randomized evenly to single or bilateral internal thoracic artery grafts.

The interim results showed differences in nonadherence to the randomized operation: 2.4% of patients in the single graft group ultimately underwent got bilateral grafts, whereas 14% of patients in the bilateral graft group ultimately got a single graft.

“This raises questions about how experienced some surgeons were with the use of bilateral internal mammary artery grafts,” Dr. Taggart commented.

At 5 years of follow-up, 8.7% of patients in the bilateral graft group and 8.4% of patients in the single graft group had died, a nonsignificant difference. “Those mortalities are similar to what has been observed in other contemporary trials of CABG,” he noted. There was no difference between diabetic and nondiabetic patients with respect to this outcome.

The rate of the composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was 12.2% in the bilateral graft group and 12.7% in the single graft group, also a nonsignificant difference.

On the other hand, patients in the bilateral graft group had higher rates of sternal wound complications (3.5% vs. 1.9%; P = .005) and sternal reconstruction (1.9% vs. 0.6%; P = .002).

The groups were statistically indistinguishable with respect to rates of mortality, major bleeding, or need for repeat revascularization, as well as angina status and quality of life measures, according to Dr. Taggart, who disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest.

NEW ORLEANS – Patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery do not see any 5-year survival advantage when their surgeon uses both internal mammary (thoracic) arteries for grafting rather than just one of them along with a vein, finds an interim analysis from the randomized Arterial Revascularization Trial (ART).

Overall, about 8.5% of the 3,102 patients randomized had died 5 years after surgery, with no significant difference between the bilateral graft and single graft groups, according to data reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions and simultaneously published (N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 14. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1610021). The former had roughly triple the rate of sternal reconstruction, mainly driven by complications in insulin-dependent diabetes patients having high body mass index.

Pointed questions

The lack of difference was possibly due to a very high level of guideline-based medical therapy in the trial (which may have especially protected the vein grafts) or to the fact that the annual failure rate of vein grafts is modest and steady up to 5 years but accelerates thereafter, Dr. Taggart proposed. The trial’s primary outcome of 10-year survival, expected in 2018, will likely differ, speculated Dr. Sellke, who is also program chair for the AHA scientific sessions.

“Do you think multiple arterial grafting is superior to single internal mammary artery grafting considering the lack of improvement in survival and other outcomes in the study, with the increase in sternal wound infections?” he asked.

“I personally, if I needed the operation, would insist on having bilateral internal mammary artery grafts done by an experienced operator because it is totally counterintuitive to believe that having more patent grafts in your heart at 10 to 20 years of follow-up is of no benefit,” Dr. Taggart maintained.

When data meet clinical practice

It may require time for the benefit of the bilateral artery graft to emerge, he agreed. “I’m undeterred from my belief that ... in patients who are getting CABG done in their 40s or 50s or early 60s, betting on a graft that’s going to outperform vein grafts is the better strategy.”

Until the trial’s 10-year results become available, physicians may wish to put these interim results in the context when counseling patients, according to Dr. Gardner.

“We have indisputable evidence that arterial grafts have better long-term patency than vein grafts,” he elaborated. “If we had a very sophisticated patient, we might tell them that we were a little surprised that this head-to-head trial of single versus double didn’t show any survival benefit at 5 years, but we still are persuaded by the data that shows the better patency, and we think in the situation that the patient’s in, that we would still recommend a double mammary, assuming that the patient doesn’t have comorbidities that would make that more dangerous.”

Trial details

ART enrolled patients from 28 cardiac surgical centers in seven countries. The patients, all of whom had multivessel coronary disease and were scheduled to undergo CABG, were randomized evenly to single or bilateral internal thoracic artery grafts.

The interim results showed differences in nonadherence to the randomized operation: 2.4% of patients in the single graft group ultimately underwent got bilateral grafts, whereas 14% of patients in the bilateral graft group ultimately got a single graft.

“This raises questions about how experienced some surgeons were with the use of bilateral internal mammary artery grafts,” Dr. Taggart commented.

At 5 years of follow-up, 8.7% of patients in the bilateral graft group and 8.4% of patients in the single graft group had died, a nonsignificant difference. “Those mortalities are similar to what has been observed in other contemporary trials of CABG,” he noted. There was no difference between diabetic and nondiabetic patients with respect to this outcome.

The rate of the composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was 12.2% in the bilateral graft group and 12.7% in the single graft group, also a nonsignificant difference.

On the other hand, patients in the bilateral graft group had higher rates of sternal wound complications (3.5% vs. 1.9%; P = .005) and sternal reconstruction (1.9% vs. 0.6%; P = .002).

The groups were statistically indistinguishable with respect to rates of mortality, major bleeding, or need for repeat revascularization, as well as angina status and quality of life measures, according to Dr. Taggart, who disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest.

Low-dose aspirin does not appear to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in individuals with type 2 diabetes but without preexisting cardiovascular disease, according to a study presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions and published simultaneously in the Nov. 15 edition of Circulation.

In the long-term follow-up of participants in an open-label controlled trial, Japanese researchers followed 2,539 patients with type 2 diabetes who were randomized to daily aspirin (81 mg or 100 mg) or no aspirin, for a median of 10.3 years to see the impact on the incidence of cardiovascular events.

American Heart Association

In their study, they found that a daily regimen of low-dose aspirin was not associated with a significant change in the risk of cardiovascular events including sudden death, fatal or nonfatal coronary artery disease, fatal or nonfatal stroke, and peripheral vascular disease (hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-1.42). They also found no significant difference between the two groups in secondary outcomes, which were a composite of coronary artery, cerebrovascular, and vascular events.

This lack of impact persisted even after age, sex, glycemic control, kidney function, smoking status, hypertension, and dyslipidemia were accounted for, and it was also seen in sensitivity analyses on the intention-to-treat cohort.

However, the investigators did find a significantly higher rate of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients taking aspirin, compared with the control group (2% vs. 0.9%, P = .03) but no difference in the rate of hemorrhagic stroke.

“Meta-analyses in patients with diabetes have reported that aspirin has a smaller benefit for primary prevention than in general populations, although patients with diabetes are at high risk for cardiovascular events,” the authors wrote. “It seems there are differential effects of low-dose aspirin therapy on preventing cardiovascular events in patients with and without diabetes.”

The study was supported by the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare of Japan and the Japan Heart Foundation. Eight authors declared funding, grants, honoraria, and other support from the pharmaceutical industry. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

Low-dose aspirin does not appear to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in individuals with type 2 diabetes but without preexisting cardiovascular disease, according to a study presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions and published simultaneously in the Nov. 15 edition of Circulation.

In the long-term follow-up of participants in an open-label controlled trial, Japanese researchers followed 2,539 patients with type 2 diabetes who were randomized to daily aspirin (81 mg or 100 mg) or no aspirin, for a median of 10.3 years to see the impact on the incidence of cardiovascular events.

American Heart Association

In their study, they found that a daily regimen of low-dose aspirin was not associated with a significant change in the risk of cardiovascular events including sudden death, fatal or nonfatal coronary artery disease, fatal or nonfatal stroke, and peripheral vascular disease (hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-1.42). They also found no significant difference between the two groups in secondary outcomes, which were a composite of coronary artery, cerebrovascular, and vascular events.

This lack of impact persisted even after age, sex, glycemic control, kidney function, smoking status, hypertension, and dyslipidemia were accounted for, and it was also seen in sensitivity analyses on the intention-to-treat cohort.

However, the investigators did find a significantly higher rate of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients taking aspirin, compared with the control group (2% vs. 0.9%, P = .03) but no difference in the rate of hemorrhagic stroke.

“Meta-analyses in patients with diabetes have reported that aspirin has a smaller benefit for primary prevention than in general populations, although patients with diabetes are at high risk for cardiovascular events,” the authors wrote. “It seems there are differential effects of low-dose aspirin therapy on preventing cardiovascular events in patients with and without diabetes.”

The study was supported by the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare of Japan and the Japan Heart Foundation. Eight authors declared funding, grants, honoraria, and other support from the pharmaceutical industry. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

Low-dose aspirin does not appear to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in individuals with type 2 diabetes but without preexisting cardiovascular disease, according to a study presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions and published simultaneously in the Nov. 15 edition of Circulation.

In the long-term follow-up of participants in an open-label controlled trial, Japanese researchers followed 2,539 patients with type 2 diabetes who were randomized to daily aspirin (81 mg or 100 mg) or no aspirin, for a median of 10.3 years to see the impact on the incidence of cardiovascular events.

American Heart Association

In their study, they found that a daily regimen of low-dose aspirin was not associated with a significant change in the risk of cardiovascular events including sudden death, fatal or nonfatal coronary artery disease, fatal or nonfatal stroke, and peripheral vascular disease (hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-1.42). They also found no significant difference between the two groups in secondary outcomes, which were a composite of coronary artery, cerebrovascular, and vascular events.

This lack of impact persisted even after age, sex, glycemic control, kidney function, smoking status, hypertension, and dyslipidemia were accounted for, and it was also seen in sensitivity analyses on the intention-to-treat cohort.

However, the investigators did find a significantly higher rate of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients taking aspirin, compared with the control group (2% vs. 0.9%, P = .03) but no difference in the rate of hemorrhagic stroke.

“Meta-analyses in patients with diabetes have reported that aspirin has a smaller benefit for primary prevention than in general populations, although patients with diabetes are at high risk for cardiovascular events,” the authors wrote. “It seems there are differential effects of low-dose aspirin therapy on preventing cardiovascular events in patients with and without diabetes.”

The study was supported by the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare of Japan and the Japan Heart Foundation. Eight authors declared funding, grants, honoraria, and other support from the pharmaceutical industry. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

NEW ORLEANS – Blood pressure and cholesterol lowering in elderly patients with moderate vascular risk did not prevent cognitive decline in HOPE-3, the large randomized Heart Outcomes and Prevention Evaluation-3 trial, Jackie Bosch, PhD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Disappointing, but the study also brought some welcome glass-half-full good news: Although treatment did not slow cognitive decline, it didn’t worsen it, either, as some had feared. That means the clinically meaningful reduction in cardiovascular events conferred with blood pressure and cholesterol lowering previously reported in HOPE-3 does not come at the cost of an increased risk of dementia.
Rosuvastatin had no adverse effect on cognitive function in HOPE-3. This is an important finding, given the black box warning for statins mandated by the Food and Drug Administration, which was based only on observational postmarketing surveillance data,” observed Dr. Bosch of the Population Health Research Institute at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

NEW ORLEANS – Blood pressure and cholesterol lowering in elderly patients with moderate vascular risk did not prevent cognitive decline in HOPE-3, the large randomized Heart Outcomes and Prevention Evaluation-3 trial, Jackie Bosch, PhD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Disappointing, but the study also brought some welcome glass-half-full good news: Although treatment did not slow cognitive decline, it didn’t worsen it, either, as some had feared. That means the clinically meaningful reduction in cardiovascular events conferred with blood pressure and cholesterol lowering previously reported in HOPE-3 does not come at the cost of an increased risk of dementia.
Rosuvastatin had no adverse effect on cognitive function in HOPE-3. This is an important finding, given the black box warning for statins mandated by the Food and Drug Administration, which was based only on observational postmarketing surveillance data,” observed Dr. Bosch of the Population Health Research Institute at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

NEW ORLEANS – Blood pressure and cholesterol lowering in elderly patients with moderate vascular risk did not prevent cognitive decline in HOPE-3, the large randomized Heart Outcomes and Prevention Evaluation-3 trial, Jackie Bosch, PhD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Disappointing, but the study also brought some welcome glass-half-full good news: Although treatment did not slow cognitive decline, it didn’t worsen it, either, as some had feared. That means the clinically meaningful reduction in cardiovascular events conferred with blood pressure and cholesterol lowering previously reported in HOPE-3 does not come at the cost of an increased risk of dementia.
Rosuvastatin had no adverse effect on cognitive function in HOPE-3. This is an important finding, given the black box warning for statins mandated by the Food and Drug Administration, which was based only on observational postmarketing surveillance data,” observed Dr. Bosch of the Population Health Research Institute at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

NEW ORLEANS – The cardiovascular safety profile of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) celecoxib, a selective inhibitor of COX-2, is no worse than those of the nonselective NSAIDs naproxen and ibuprofen, according to a trial reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The trial, known as PRECISION (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety vs Ibuprofen Or Naproxen) was undertaken after another selective COX-2 inhibitor, rofecoxib (Vioxx), was withdrawn from the market because of associated cardiovascular events. It compared the three drugs among more than 24,000 patients with painful arthritis and elevated cardiovascular risk.
Main results showed that 2%-3% of patients experienced a cardiovascular event (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) during a follow-up approaching 3 years, regardless of which drug they were assigned to take, with the slight differences falling within predefined margins for noninferiority of celecoxib, investigators reported in a session and related press conference.

Additionally, celecoxib yielded a lower rate of gastrointestinal events when compared with each of the other drugs and a lower rate of renal events when compared with ibuprofen.

“After the withdrawal of rofecoxib, everybody thought they knew the answer, that COX-2 inhibitors had an unfavorable cardiovascular profile,” commented first author Steven E. Nissen, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. “We didn’t find that. And this is the type of study that once again teaches us that if we jump to conclusions about this based on mechanistic considerations, we often make very bad decisions.”

A cautionary view

“The investigators addressed an extremely important question, which is what is the cardiovascular safety of agents that we administer for a general medical condition over the long term,” commented invited discussant Elliott M. Antman, MD, a senior physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and associate dean for Clinical and Translational Research at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “We don’t see a lot of trials like that, but we do need this information.”

Trial details

Patients were eligible for PRECISION, a Pfizer-funded trial, if they had osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis and were at increased cardiovascular risk.

In all, 24,081 patients from 926 centers globally were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with celecoxib, naproxen, or ibuprofen, all of which are now available as generics in the United States.

“Patients were randomized to the FDA-approved doses of these drugs, and they could have their dose increased if they had unrelieved pain up to the maximum allowed by regulatory authorities in the local jurisdictions where the study was done,” Dr. Nissen noted, pointing out that studies initially generating some concern about celecoxib used a supratherapeutic dose of 800 mg daily.

As COX-2 inhibitors are less likely than nonselective NSAIDs to cause ulcers, which might affect compliance and outcomes, all patients additionally received esomeprazole for gastroprotection “to try to level the playing field,” he explained.

The mean treatment duration was 20.3 months, and the mean follow-up duration was 34.1 months, according to data reported at the meeting and simultaneously published (N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1611593). On average, the daily dose of drug received was 209 mg for celecoxib, 852 mg for naproxen, and 2,045 mg for ibuprofen.

In intention-to-treat analyses, the rate of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death (including hemorrhagic death), nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke was 2.3% in the celecoxib group, 2.5% in the naproxen group, and 2.7% in the ibuprofen group. The hazard ratio was 0.93 for celecoxib versus naproxen (P less than .001 for noninferiority) and 0.85 for celecoxib versus ibuprofen (P less than .001 for noninferiority).

Differences were more marked in the on-treatment population. Here, the rate of the primary outcome was 1.7% in the celecoxib group, 1.8% in the naproxen group, and 1.9% in the ibuprofen group. The HR was 0.90 for celecoxib versus naproxen (P less than .001 for noninferiority) and 0.81 for celecoxib versus ibuprofen (P less than .001 for noninferiority).

Secondary outcomes, which tested for superiority, showed that the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was 15% higher in the ibuprofen group as compared with the celecoxib group in the intent-to-treat population. The difference translated to a near-significant reduction in risk with the latter (HR, 0.87; P = .06) that appeared greater in the on-treatment population.

However, Dr. Nissen cautioned that he could not state that celecoxib was superior. “Secondary and tertiary endpoints in a clinical trial are hypothesis generating, and they are not considered definitive evidence,” he commented. At the same time, “the FDA is going to have to deal with that because what do they do with labeling? What do they do with over-the-counter access to these various drugs?”

The rate of all-cause mortality was 25% higher with naproxen than with celecoxib (HR, 0.80; P = .052).

The rate of gastrointestinal events was 54% higher with ibuprofen (HR, 0.65; P = .002) and 41% higher with naproxen (HR, 0.71; P = .01) as compared with celecoxib. And the rate of renal events was 64% higher with ibuprofen than with celecoxib (HR, 0.61; P = .004).

In a post hoc analysis of global safety, the rate of serious cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and renal events was 28% higher with ibuprofen (HR, 0.78; P less than .001) and 15% higher with naproxen (HR, 0.87; P = .03) than with celecoxib.

Of note, the findings for the primary endpoint were similar regardless of whether patients were taking low-dose aspirin or not. “There was no interaction with aspirin use,” Dr. Nissen stated. “This was not about the interference of ibuprofen or naproxen with aspirin use.”

Analyses of pain relief using a visual analogue scale showed no clinically meaningful differences, suggesting that the drug doses used were equally analgesic, he said. Stopping of study drug because of lack of efficacy was slightly more common in the celecoxib group.

“We didn’t study the low-dose, intermittent use of these drugs that most of the public engages in, and it’s really important that we crisply communicate that to the public because somebody who takes occasionally ibuprofen or naproxen for a headache should not look at these comparative data in a way that should necessarily influence their behavior. We just don’t know the answer,” cautioned Dr. Nissen, who disclosed that he received grant support from Pfizer during the conduct of the trial.

But the findings are relevant for individuals who take over-the-counter NSAIDs at doses exceeding the label, a phenomenon known as dose creep. “We need to reemphasize to the public that the labeled over-the-counter dose is what you should take. You shouldn’t double up or triple up on the drugs because the issue of high-dose therapy, which is what we studied, suggests that there are really potentially important gastrointestinal, renal, and cardiovascular risks,” he said.

NEW ORLEANS – The cardiovascular safety profile of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) celecoxib, a selective inhibitor of COX-2, is no worse than those of the nonselective NSAIDs naproxen and ibuprofen, according to a trial reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The trial, known as PRECISION (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety vs Ibuprofen Or Naproxen) was undertaken after another selective COX-2 inhibitor, rofecoxib (Vioxx), was withdrawn from the market because of associated cardiovascular events. It compared the three drugs among more than 24,000 patients with painful arthritis and elevated cardiovascular risk.
Main results showed that 2%-3% of patients experienced a cardiovascular event (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) during a follow-up approaching 3 years, regardless of which drug they were assigned to take, with the slight differences falling within predefined margins for noninferiority of celecoxib, investigators reported in a session and related press conference.

Additionally, celecoxib yielded a lower rate of gastrointestinal events when compared with each of the other drugs and a lower rate of renal events when compared with ibuprofen.

“After the withdrawal of rofecoxib, everybody thought they knew the answer, that COX-2 inhibitors had an unfavorable cardiovascular profile,” commented first author Steven E. Nissen, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. “We didn’t find that. And this is the type of study that once again teaches us that if we jump to conclusions about this based on mechanistic considerations, we often make very bad decisions.”

A cautionary view

“The investigators addressed an extremely important question, which is what is the cardiovascular safety of agents that we administer for a general medical condition over the long term,” commented invited discussant Elliott M. Antman, MD, a senior physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and associate dean for Clinical and Translational Research at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “We don’t see a lot of trials like that, but we do need this information.”

Trial details

Patients were eligible for PRECISION, a Pfizer-funded trial, if they had osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis and were at increased cardiovascular risk.

In all, 24,081 patients from 926 centers globally were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with celecoxib, naproxen, or ibuprofen, all of which are now available as generics in the United States.

“Patients were randomized to the FDA-approved doses of these drugs, and they could have their dose increased if they had unrelieved pain up to the maximum allowed by regulatory authorities in the local jurisdictions where the study was done,” Dr. Nissen noted, pointing out that studies initially generating some concern about celecoxib used a supratherapeutic dose of 800 mg daily.

As COX-2 inhibitors are less likely than nonselective NSAIDs to cause ulcers, which might affect compliance and outcomes, all patients additionally received esomeprazole for gastroprotection “to try to level the playing field,” he explained.

The mean treatment duration was 20.3 months, and the mean follow-up duration was 34.1 months, according to data reported at the meeting and simultaneously published (N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1611593). On average, the daily dose of drug received was 209 mg for celecoxib, 852 mg for naproxen, and 2,045 mg for ibuprofen.

In intention-to-treat analyses, the rate of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death (including hemorrhagic death), nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke was 2.3% in the celecoxib group, 2.5% in the naproxen group, and 2.7% in the ibuprofen group. The hazard ratio was 0.93 for celecoxib versus naproxen (P less than .001 for noninferiority) and 0.85 for celecoxib versus ibuprofen (P less than .001 for noninferiority).

Differences were more marked in the on-treatment population. Here, the rate of the primary outcome was 1.7% in the celecoxib group, 1.8% in the naproxen group, and 1.9% in the ibuprofen group. The HR was 0.90 for celecoxib versus naproxen (P less than .001 for noninferiority) and 0.81 for celecoxib versus ibuprofen (P less than .001 for noninferiority).

Secondary outcomes, which tested for superiority, showed that the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was 15% higher in the ibuprofen group as compared with the celecoxib group in the intent-to-treat population. The difference translated to a near-significant reduction in risk with the latter (HR, 0.87; P = .06) that appeared greater in the on-treatment population.

However, Dr. Nissen cautioned that he could not state that celecoxib was superior. “Secondary and tertiary endpoints in a clinical trial are hypothesis generating, and they are not considered definitive evidence,” he commented. At the same time, “the FDA is going to have to deal with that because what do they do with labeling? What do they do with over-the-counter access to these various drugs?”

The rate of all-cause mortality was 25% higher with naproxen than with celecoxib (HR, 0.80; P = .052).

The rate of gastrointestinal events was 54% higher with ibuprofen (HR, 0.65; P = .002) and 41% higher with naproxen (HR, 0.71; P = .01) as compared with celecoxib. And the rate of renal events was 64% higher with ibuprofen than with celecoxib (HR, 0.61; P = .004).

In a post hoc analysis of global safety, the rate of serious cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and renal events was 28% higher with ibuprofen (HR, 0.78; P less than .001) and 15% higher with naproxen (HR, 0.87; P = .03) than with celecoxib.

Of note, the findings for the primary endpoint were similar regardless of whether patients were taking low-dose aspirin or not. “There was no interaction with aspirin use,” Dr. Nissen stated. “This was not about the interference of ibuprofen or naproxen with aspirin use.”

Analyses of pain relief using a visual analogue scale showed no clinically meaningful differences, suggesting that the drug doses used were equally analgesic, he said. Stopping of study drug because of lack of efficacy was slightly more common in the celecoxib group.

“We didn’t study the low-dose, intermittent use of these drugs that most of the public engages in, and it’s really important that we crisply communicate that to the public because somebody who takes occasionally ibuprofen or naproxen for a headache should not look at these comparative data in a way that should necessarily influence their behavior. We just don’t know the answer,” cautioned Dr. Nissen, who disclosed that he received grant support from Pfizer during the conduct of the trial.

But the findings are relevant for individuals who take over-the-counter NSAIDs at doses exceeding the label, a phenomenon known as dose creep. “We need to reemphasize to the public that the labeled over-the-counter dose is what you should take. You shouldn’t double up or triple up on the drugs because the issue of high-dose therapy, which is what we studied, suggests that there are really potentially important gastrointestinal, renal, and cardiovascular risks,” he said.

NEW ORLEANS – The cardiovascular safety profile of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) celecoxib, a selective inhibitor of COX-2, is no worse than those of the nonselective NSAIDs naproxen and ibuprofen, according to a trial reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The trial, known as PRECISION (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety vs Ibuprofen Or Naproxen) was undertaken after another selective COX-2 inhibitor, rofecoxib (Vioxx), was withdrawn from the market because of associated cardiovascular events. It compared the three drugs among more than 24,000 patients with painful arthritis and elevated cardiovascular risk.
Main results showed that 2%-3% of patients experienced a cardiovascular event (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) during a follow-up approaching 3 years, regardless of which drug they were assigned to take, with the slight differences falling within predefined margins for noninferiority of celecoxib, investigators reported in a session and related press conference.

Additionally, celecoxib yielded a lower rate of gastrointestinal events when compared with each of the other drugs and a lower rate of renal events when compared with ibuprofen.

“After the withdrawal of rofecoxib, everybody thought they knew the answer, that COX-2 inhibitors had an unfavorable cardiovascular profile,” commented first author Steven E. Nissen, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. “We didn’t find that. And this is the type of study that once again teaches us that if we jump to conclusions about this based on mechanistic considerations, we often make very bad decisions.”

A cautionary view

“The investigators addressed an extremely important question, which is what is the cardiovascular safety of agents that we administer for a general medical condition over the long term,” commented invited discussant Elliott M. Antman, MD, a senior physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and associate dean for Clinical and Translational Research at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “We don’t see a lot of trials like that, but we do need this information.”

Trial details

Patients were eligible for PRECISION, a Pfizer-funded trial, if they had osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis and were at increased cardiovascular risk.

In all, 24,081 patients from 926 centers globally were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with celecoxib, naproxen, or ibuprofen, all of which are now available as generics in the United States.

“Patients were randomized to the FDA-approved doses of these drugs, and they could have their dose increased if they had unrelieved pain up to the maximum allowed by regulatory authorities in the local jurisdictions where the study was done,” Dr. Nissen noted, pointing out that studies initially generating some concern about celecoxib used a supratherapeutic dose of 800 mg daily.

As COX-2 inhibitors are less likely than nonselective NSAIDs to cause ulcers, which might affect compliance and outcomes, all patients additionally received esomeprazole for gastroprotection “to try to level the playing field,” he explained.

The mean treatment duration was 20.3 months, and the mean follow-up duration was 34.1 months, according to data reported at the meeting and simultaneously published (N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1611593). On average, the daily dose of drug received was 209 mg for celecoxib, 852 mg for naproxen, and 2,045 mg for ibuprofen.

In intention-to-treat analyses, the rate of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death (including hemorrhagic death), nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke was 2.3% in the celecoxib group, 2.5% in the naproxen group, and 2.7% in the ibuprofen group. The hazard ratio was 0.93 for celecoxib versus naproxen (P less than .001 for noninferiority) and 0.85 for celecoxib versus ibuprofen (P less than .001 for noninferiority).

Differences were more marked in the on-treatment population. Here, the rate of the primary outcome was 1.7% in the celecoxib group, 1.8% in the naproxen group, and 1.9% in the ibuprofen group. The HR was 0.90 for celecoxib versus naproxen (P less than .001 for noninferiority) and 0.81 for celecoxib versus ibuprofen (P less than .001 for noninferiority).

Secondary outcomes, which tested for superiority, showed that the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was 15% higher in the ibuprofen group as compared with the celecoxib group in the intent-to-treat population. The difference translated to a near-significant reduction in risk with the latter (HR, 0.87; P = .06) that appeared greater in the on-treatment population.

However, Dr. Nissen cautioned that he could not state that celecoxib was superior. “Secondary and tertiary endpoints in a clinical trial are hypothesis generating, and they are not considered definitive evidence,” he commented. At the same time, “the FDA is going to have to deal with that because what do they do with labeling? What do they do with over-the-counter access to these various drugs?”

The rate of all-cause mortality was 25% higher with naproxen than with celecoxib (HR, 0.80; P = .052).

The rate of gastrointestinal events was 54% higher with ibuprofen (HR, 0.65; P = .002) and 41% higher with naproxen (HR, 0.71; P = .01) as compared with celecoxib. And the rate of renal events was 64% higher with ibuprofen than with celecoxib (HR, 0.61; P = .004).

In a post hoc analysis of global safety, the rate of serious cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and renal events was 28% higher with ibuprofen (HR, 0.78; P less than .001) and 15% higher with naproxen (HR, 0.87; P = .03) than with celecoxib.

Of note, the findings for the primary endpoint were similar regardless of whether patients were taking low-dose aspirin or not. “There was no interaction with aspirin use,” Dr. Nissen stated. “This was not about the interference of ibuprofen or naproxen with aspirin use.”

Analyses of pain relief using a visual analogue scale showed no clinically meaningful differences, suggesting that the drug doses used were equally analgesic, he said. Stopping of study drug because of lack of efficacy was slightly more common in the celecoxib group.

“We didn’t study the low-dose, intermittent use of these drugs that most of the public engages in, and it’s really important that we crisply communicate that to the public because somebody who takes occasionally ibuprofen or naproxen for a headache should not look at these comparative data in a way that should necessarily influence their behavior. We just don’t know the answer,” cautioned Dr. Nissen, who disclosed that he received grant support from Pfizer during the conduct of the trial.

But the findings are relevant for individuals who take over-the-counter NSAIDs at doses exceeding the label, a phenomenon known as dose creep. “We need to reemphasize to the public that the labeled over-the-counter dose is what you should take. You shouldn’t double up or triple up on the drugs because the issue of high-dose therapy, which is what we studied, suggests that there are really potentially important gastrointestinal, renal, and cardiovascular risks,” he said.

Ticagrelor was found to be “not superior” to clopidogrel at preventing cardiovascular events in the largest clinical trial to date involving patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease (PAD), Manesh Patel, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.*

Ticagrelor also was no better than clopidogrel at preventing acute limb ischemia in this study of 13,885 patients.

Regarding safety issues, the two drugs had identical rates of major bleeding adverse events, but ticagrelor was discontinued significantly more often than clopidogrel was, because of its other well-known adverse effects, said Dr. Patel of Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The findings of the EUCLID (Examining the Use of Ticagrelor in PAD) study were presented at the meeting and simultaneously published online Nov. 13 in the New England Journal of Medicine (2016. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1611688).

In addition, the results of a substudy of the EUCLID trial involving the 7,875 participants who had previously undergone lower-limb revascularization were reported at the meeting and simultaneously published online in Circulation (2016 Nov 13; doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.025880).

Until now, there have been no large studies comparing antiplatelet therapies in patients with PAD. Clopidogrel is considered superior to aspirin in this patient population based on limited evidence, often extrapolated from studies of acute coronary syndromes or coronary artery disease. Ticagrelor also proved beneficial in these contexts, so researchers performed the EUCLID study, comparing the two medications head to head in patients with PAD.

The manufacturer-funded double-blind trial was conducted at 811 medical centers in eight countries. Patients aged 50 years or older (median age, 66 years) were randomly assigned to receive either oral ticagrelor, 90 mg twice daily (6,930 patients), or oral clopidogrel, 75 mg once daily (6,955 patients), and were followed for a median of 30 months.

The primary efficacy endpoint – the first occurrence of any event in the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke – occurred in 10.8% of the ticagrelor group and 10.6% of the clopidogrel group, for a hazard ratio of 1.02.

When the components of this composite endpoint were considered individually, only the rate of ischemic stroke was significantly different between the two study groups, occurring in 1.9% of patients taking ticagrelor and 2.4% of those taking clopidogrel (HR, 0.78).

Other important secondary and composite efficacy endpoints, including acute limb ischemia and revascularization, were similar between the two study groups, Dr. Patel said.

The primary safety endpoint – the rate of major bleeding events – occurred in the same percentage of both study groups (1.6%), and individual rates of fatal bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and minor bleeding were similar.

“There were numerically fewer fatal bleeding events in the ticagrelor group than in the clopidogrel group (10 vs. 20), but there were significantly more bleeding events leading to drug discontinuation with ticagrelor than with clopidogrel (168 vs. 112),” he noted.

Ticagrelor was discontinued more often than clopidogrel during the study (30.1% of patients vs. 25.9%; HR, 1.21). Discontinuation was driven mainly by the occurrence of dyspnea (4.8% vs. 0.8%) and minor bleeding, both of which are well-described adverse effects of ticagrelor, Dr. Patel said.

“Our findings show the hazards of extrapolating evidence from patients with coronary artery disease to those with peripheral artery disease,” he added.

In a separate report in Circulation, the results were similar in the substudy of EUCLID participants who had already undergone lower-extremity revascularization procedures before enrollment, reported W. Schuyler Jones, MD, also of of Duke University.

The primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 11.4% of the ticagrelor group and 11.3% of the clopidogrel group, a nonsignificant difference (HR, 1.01). “Other key secondary and composite endpoints, including repeat revascularization, also were not different between the two study groups,” Dr. Jones said.

Regarding safety endpoints, the rates of major bleeding, fatal bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and minor bleeding all were similar between the two study groups.

“These findings suggest that patients with prior revascularization have a substantial residual rate of cardiovascular and acute limb events, despite high adherence to antiplatelet and statin medications, and require further study,” Dr. Jones noted.

*Correction 11/14/16: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the investigator who presented the study at the meeting.

Ticagrelor was found to be “not superior” to clopidogrel at preventing cardiovascular events in the largest clinical trial to date involving patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease (PAD), Manesh Patel, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.*

Ticagrelor also was no better than clopidogrel at preventing acute limb ischemia in this study of 13,885 patients.

Regarding safety issues, the two drugs had identical rates of major bleeding adverse events, but ticagrelor was discontinued significantly more often than clopidogrel was, because of its other well-known adverse effects, said Dr. Patel of Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The findings of the EUCLID (Examining the Use of Ticagrelor in PAD) study were presented at the meeting and simultaneously published online Nov. 13 in the New England Journal of Medicine (2016. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1611688).

In addition, the results of a substudy of the EUCLID trial involving the 7,875 participants who had previously undergone lower-limb revascularization were reported at the meeting and simultaneously published online in Circulation (2016 Nov 13; doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.025880).

Until now, there have been no large studies comparing antiplatelet therapies in patients with PAD. Clopidogrel is considered superior to aspirin in this patient population based on limited evidence, often extrapolated from studies of acute coronary syndromes or coronary artery disease. Ticagrelor also proved beneficial in these contexts, so researchers performed the EUCLID study, comparing the two medications head to head in patients with PAD.

The manufacturer-funded double-blind trial was conducted at 811 medical centers in eight countries. Patients aged 50 years or older (median age, 66 years) were randomly assigned to receive either oral ticagrelor, 90 mg twice daily (6,930 patients), or oral clopidogrel, 75 mg once daily (6,955 patients), and were followed for a median of 30 months.

The primary efficacy endpoint – the first occurrence of any event in the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke – occurred in 10.8% of the ticagrelor group and 10.6% of the clopidogrel group, for a hazard ratio of 1.02.

When the components of this composite endpoint were considered individually, only the rate of ischemic stroke was significantly different between the two study groups, occurring in 1.9% of patients taking ticagrelor and 2.4% of those taking clopidogrel (HR, 0.78).

Other important secondary and composite efficacy endpoints, including acute limb ischemia and revascularization, were similar between the two study groups, Dr. Patel said.

The primary safety endpoint – the rate of major bleeding events – occurred in the same percentage of both study groups (1.6%), and individual rates of fatal bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and minor bleeding were similar.

“There were numerically fewer fatal bleeding events in the ticagrelor group than in the clopidogrel group (10 vs. 20), but there were significantly more bleeding events leading to drug discontinuation with ticagrelor than with clopidogrel (168 vs. 112),” he noted.

Ticagrelor was discontinued more often than clopidogrel during the study (30.1% of patients vs. 25.9%; HR, 1.21). Discontinuation was driven mainly by the occurrence of dyspnea (4.8% vs. 0.8%) and minor bleeding, both of which are well-described adverse effects of ticagrelor, Dr. Patel said.

“Our findings show the hazards of extrapolating evidence from patients with coronary artery disease to those with peripheral artery disease,” he added.

In a separate report in Circulation, the results were similar in the substudy of EUCLID participants who had already undergone lower-extremity revascularization procedures before enrollment, reported W. Schuyler Jones, MD, also of of Duke University.

The primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 11.4% of the ticagrelor group and 11.3% of the clopidogrel group, a nonsignificant difference (HR, 1.01). “Other key secondary and composite endpoints, including repeat revascularization, also were not different between the two study groups,” Dr. Jones said.

Regarding safety endpoints, the rates of major bleeding, fatal bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and minor bleeding all were similar between the two study groups.

“These findings suggest that patients with prior revascularization have a substantial residual rate of cardiovascular and acute limb events, despite high adherence to antiplatelet and statin medications, and require further study,” Dr. Jones noted.

*Correction 11/14/16: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the investigator who presented the study at the meeting.

Ticagrelor was found to be “not superior” to clopidogrel at preventing cardiovascular events in the largest clinical trial to date involving patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease (PAD), Manesh Patel, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.*

Ticagrelor also was no better than clopidogrel at preventing acute limb ischemia in this study of 13,885 patients.

Regarding safety issues, the two drugs had identical rates of major bleeding adverse events, but ticagrelor was discontinued significantly more often than clopidogrel was, because of its other well-known adverse effects, said Dr. Patel of Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The findings of the EUCLID (Examining the Use of Ticagrelor in PAD) study were presented at the meeting and simultaneously published online Nov. 13 in the New England Journal of Medicine (2016. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1611688).

In addition, the results of a substudy of the EUCLID trial involving the 7,875 participants who had previously undergone lower-limb revascularization were reported at the meeting and simultaneously published online in Circulation (2016 Nov 13; doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.025880).

Until now, there have been no large studies comparing antiplatelet therapies in patients with PAD. Clopidogrel is considered superior to aspirin in this patient population based on limited evidence, often extrapolated from studies of acute coronary syndromes or coronary artery disease. Ticagrelor also proved beneficial in these contexts, so researchers performed the EUCLID study, comparing the two medications head to head in patients with PAD.

The manufacturer-funded double-blind trial was conducted at 811 medical centers in eight countries. Patients aged 50 years or older (median age, 66 years) were randomly assigned to receive either oral ticagrelor, 90 mg twice daily (6,930 patients), or oral clopidogrel, 75 mg once daily (6,955 patients), and were followed for a median of 30 months.

The primary efficacy endpoint – the first occurrence of any event in the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke – occurred in 10.8% of the ticagrelor group and 10.6% of the clopidogrel group, for a hazard ratio of 1.02.

When the components of this composite endpoint were considered individually, only the rate of ischemic stroke was significantly different between the two study groups, occurring in 1.9% of patients taking ticagrelor and 2.4% of those taking clopidogrel (HR, 0.78).

Other important secondary and composite efficacy endpoints, including acute limb ischemia and revascularization, were similar between the two study groups, Dr. Patel said.

The primary safety endpoint – the rate of major bleeding events – occurred in the same percentage of both study groups (1.6%), and individual rates of fatal bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and minor bleeding were similar.

“There were numerically fewer fatal bleeding events in the ticagrelor group than in the clopidogrel group (10 vs. 20), but there were significantly more bleeding events leading to drug discontinuation with ticagrelor than with clopidogrel (168 vs. 112),” he noted.

Ticagrelor was discontinued more often than clopidogrel during the study (30.1% of patients vs. 25.9%; HR, 1.21). Discontinuation was driven mainly by the occurrence of dyspnea (4.8% vs. 0.8%) and minor bleeding, both of which are well-described adverse effects of ticagrelor, Dr. Patel said.

“Our findings show the hazards of extrapolating evidence from patients with coronary artery disease to those with peripheral artery disease,” he added.

In a separate report in Circulation, the results were similar in the substudy of EUCLID participants who had already undergone lower-extremity revascularization procedures before enrollment, reported W. Schuyler Jones, MD, also of of Duke University.

The primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 11.4% of the ticagrelor group and 11.3% of the clopidogrel group, a nonsignificant difference (HR, 1.01). “Other key secondary and composite endpoints, including repeat revascularization, also were not different between the two study groups,” Dr. Jones said.

Regarding safety endpoints, the rates of major bleeding, fatal bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and minor bleeding all were similar between the two study groups.

“These findings suggest that patients with prior revascularization have a substantial residual rate of cardiovascular and acute limb events, despite high adherence to antiplatelet and statin medications, and require further study,” Dr. Jones noted.

*Correction 11/14/16: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the investigator who presented the study at the meeting.

NEW ORLEANS – The severity and duration of hypotension in traumatic brain injury patients during EMS transport to an emergency department has a tight and essentially linear relationship to their mortality rate during subsequent weeks of recovery, according to an analysis of more than 7,500 brain-injured patients.

For each doubling of the combined severity and duration of hypotension during the prehospital period, when systolic blood pressure was less than 90 mm Hg, patient mortality rose by 19%, Daniel W. Spaite, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

However, the results do not address whether aggressive treatment of hypotension by EMS technicians in a patient with traumatic brain injury (TBI) leads to reduced mortality. That question is being assessed as part of the primary endpoint of the Excellence in Prehospital Injury Care-Traumatic Brain Injury (EPIC-TBI) study, which should have an answer by the end of 2017, said Dr. Spaite, professor of emergency medicine at the University of Arizona in Tuscon.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com On Twitter @mitchelzoler

NEW ORLEANS – The severity and duration of hypotension in traumatic brain injury patients during EMS transport to an emergency department has a tight and essentially linear relationship to their mortality rate during subsequent weeks of recovery, according to an analysis of more than 7,500 brain-injured patients.

For each doubling of the combined severity and duration of hypotension during the prehospital period, when systolic blood pressure was less than 90 mm Hg, patient mortality rose by 19%, Daniel W. Spaite, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

However, the results do not address whether aggressive treatment of hypotension by EMS technicians in a patient with traumatic brain injury (TBI) leads to reduced mortality. That question is being assessed as part of the primary endpoint of the Excellence in Prehospital Injury Care-Traumatic Brain Injury (EPIC-TBI) study, which should have an answer by the end of 2017, said Dr. Spaite, professor of emergency medicine at the University of Arizona in Tuscon.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com On Twitter @mitchelzoler

NEW ORLEANS – The severity and duration of hypotension in traumatic brain injury patients during EMS transport to an emergency department has a tight and essentially linear relationship to their mortality rate during subsequent weeks of recovery, according to an analysis of more than 7,500 brain-injured patients.

For each doubling of the combined severity and duration of hypotension during the prehospital period, when systolic blood pressure was less than 90 mm Hg, patient mortality rose by 19%, Daniel W. Spaite, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

However, the results do not address whether aggressive treatment of hypotension by EMS technicians in a patient with traumatic brain injury (TBI) leads to reduced mortality. That question is being assessed as part of the primary endpoint of the Excellence in Prehospital Injury Care-Traumatic Brain Injury (EPIC-TBI) study, which should have an answer by the end of 2017, said Dr. Spaite, professor of emergency medicine at the University of Arizona in Tuscon.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com On Twitter @mitchelzoler

The emphasis on this year’s American Heart Association Scientific Sessions in New Orleans is bigness: “Big science, big technology, and big networking opportunities,” the AHA 16 website says.

And so the 19 abstracts out of thousands submitted that got the biggest score from program committee for AHA 2016, led by Frank Sellke, MD, were chosen for presentation at four Late-Breaking Clinical Trials session previewed the late-breaking science.

CrackerClips/Thinkstock

Big trials for big questions

The first late-breaker session, on Sunday, Nov. 13, at 3:45 p.m., CT, is titled will, as its title says present the long-awaited results of four trials with large enrollment and long-term outcomes.

EUCLID (A Study Comparing Cardiovascular Effects of Ticagrelor and Clopidogrel in Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease) randomized an estimated 16,000 patients with symptomatic PAD to long-term antiplatelet monotherapy with either ticagrelor or clopidogrel to see which one would be superior in preventing the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke up to 40 months. Secondarily, it looked at acute limb ischemia, need for revascularization, and disease progression. “This could have tremendous implications for patients treat for pad trying to prevent CV disease,” Dr. Sellke said.

PRECISION (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety vs Ibuprofen or Naproxen) harks back to 2005, when the Food and Drug Administration, wrestling with the growing evidence that NSAIDs were linked with cardiovascular events, asked for a large, cardiovascular outcomes trial. PRECISION, sponsored by Pfizer but run by an academic-led steering committee led by Steven Nissen, MD, now chief of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, randomized some 20,000 arthritis patients with or at risk for cardiovascular disease to long-term pain treatment with celecoxib, naproxen, or ibuprofen for a planned follow-up of 2 years. The primary endpoint is a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke. Dr. Sellke noted that the results will be important for many physicians and patients wanting to minimize the risks associated with NSAIDs.

HOPE 3 (Heart Outcomes Evaluation 3), presented in April this year at the American College of Cardiology meeting in Chicago, showed the combination of rosuvastatin plus candesartan and hydrochlorothiazide reduced cardiovascular events in intermediate-risk patients with hypertension, regardless of their baseline LDL cholesterol and inflammatory biomarker levels. The analysis to be presented at AHA will show whether the combination has any effect on cognitive function. As evidence builds of the cardiovascular benefit of aggressive treatment of hypertension, as in the SPRINT trial, the results could be tremendously important, Dr. Sellke said.

TRUE AHF (Efficacy and Safety of Ularitide for the Treatment of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure) randomized about 2,150 patients with acute decompensated heart failure to receive a 48-hour intravenous infusion of the natriuretic peptide ularitide or placebo. The primary outcome is a composite of 48-hour improved in-hospital worsening or unchanged clinical conditions, as well as long-term cardiovascular mortality with a median follow-up of 7 months. Because there are no effective treatments for acute systolic heart failure, the results of TRUE AHF could be of tremendous benefit, Dr. Sellke said.

Pioneering the Future of HeART Interventions

The trials with the greatest impact for practice to be presented at AHA 2015, according to the Dr. Sellke’s admitted bias as a cardiothoracic surgeon, will all be presented in this second of the late-breaker sessions, on Monday, Nov. 14, at 10:45 a.m., CT.

ART (Arterial Revascularization Trial) was a comparison of single vs. bilateral internal mammary artery grafting in more than 3,000 randomized patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG). The outcomes of mortality, stroke, MI, and repeat revascularization were published in 2010, showing no differences between groups. The 5-year results to be presented on Monday may resolve some of the controversy surrounding the two methods, as surgeons and cardiologists are strongly divided on the benefits and risks of single, compared with double, internal mammary artery grafting.

FUTURE (Functional Testing Underlying Coronary Revascularization) compared fractional flow reserve–guided management with conventional management in roughly 900 patients undergoing revascularization with multivessel coronary artery disease. The primary outcome is a composite of death, MI, coronary revascularization, and stroke. FFR has received a lot of attention recently, Dr. Sellke said, because it looks at the physiologic, rather than the anatomic, effects of lesion on catheterization. The results will show whether there’s clinical benefit to adding FFR to angiography that will offset the additional time it takes to perform before PCI or CABG.

PIONEER AF-PCI (An Open-label, Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter Study Exploring Two Treatment Strategies of Rivaroxaban and a Dose-Adjusted Oral Vitamin K Antagonist Treatment Strategy in Subjects With Atrial Fibrillation Who Undergo Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) addressed the conundrum of treating anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation who are undergoing PCI with adequate dual-antiplatelet therapy – and avoiding bleeding events. About 2,000 patients were randomized to varying combinations of rivaroxaban or warfarin plus aspirin, ticagrelor prasugrel, and/or clopidogrel for 1 year. The primary outcome is significant bleeding. Dr. Sellke said that because drug-eluting stents require at least a year of DAPT, the PIONEER AF-PCI results will add knowledge in an important and controversial area.

GERMANY is a report from the German Aortic Valve Registry (GARY) on the 1-year outcomes of patients with intermediate-risk severe aortic stenosis who underwent either transcatheter or surgical aortic replacement on the efficacy and outcomes of the two approaches. Dr. Sellke noted that these results will be important because the patients in this registry were not at high risk or ineligible for surgical aortic replacement.

Insights from New Therapeutic Trials for Lipids

Of the five trials presented in this session on Tuesday, Nov. 15, at 10:45 a.m., CT, only one is in an approved treatment for lowering lipids. That is GLAGOV (Global Assessment of Plaque Regression With a PCSK9 Antibody as Measured by Intravascular Ultrasound), is looking at whether LDL lowering with the PCSK9 inhibitor evolocumab reduces atheroma volume in almost 1,000 patients.

Guiding the Momentum to Effect HF Outcomes – Ironing Out the Wrinkles

Two of the six heart failure trials presented in this session on Wednesday, Nov. 16, at 10:45 a.m., CT, study cardiorespiratory effects of iron, thus the title, Dr. Sellke said.

REDUCE LAP HF (A Study to Evaluate the DC Devices, Inc. IASD System II to REDUCE Elevated Left Atrial Pressure in Patients With Heart Failure). The primary outcome is a composite of death, stroke, MI, or a systemic embolic event at 6 months. The trial evaluated a transcatheter interatrial shunt device to left atrial pressure in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). In this type of diastolic heart failure in which patients’ hearts cannot relax, there is really no treatment, Dr. Sellke said. So although this treatment seems “hokey,” a positive result could be important.

ATHENA HF (Aldosterone Targeted Neurohormonal Combined with Natriuresis Therapy in Heart Failure) tested the diuretic spironolactone in heart failure. The investigators randomized 360 patients to high-dose spironolactone or usual care to see whether they could provide greater reductions of n-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels within 96 hours. There’s evidence that spironolactone can provide symptomatic relief for patients with heart failure, so these results could be important, Dr. Sellke said.

IRONOUT HF (Oral Iron Repletion Effects on Oxygen Up Take in Heart Failure) randomized heart failure patients with iron deficiency to oral iron supplementation or placebo and measured peak oxygen uptake at 16 weeks.

EFFECT-HF (Effect of Ferric Carboxymaltose on Exercise Capacity in Patients with Iron Deficiency and Chronic Heart Failure) also studied the effect of iron supplementation, intravenous in this case, on exercise capacity in heart failure patients at 24 weeks. Iron depletion is a hallmark of heart failure, Dr. Sellke pointed out, so iron repletion could be a simple way to improve functional capacity.

MOMENTUM 3 (Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HM3) evaluated the safety and effectiveness of the Thoratec HeartMate 3 left-ventricular assist device employing MagLev technology, which is said to facilitate the free flow of blood through the device. Roughly 1,000 patients with advanced, refractory heart failure were randomized to receive either the investigational HeartMate 3 or the HeartMate 2. The primary outcomes included short- and long-term survival and freedom from debilitating stroke. Trials such as this are very important, Dr. Sellke said, because the need for donor hearts far exceeds demand and better, cheaper LVADs that last longer could extend the lives of many thousands of patients every year.

MultiSENSE (Evaluation of Multisensor Data in Heart Failure Patients With Implanted Devices) collected information taken from sensors in an implanted cardiac synchronization therapy device in 1,000 patients to develop algorithms that would detect worsening heart failure. Multiple readmissions for heart failure are frequent and ineffective, and detecting the onset of worsening heart failure has the potential to bring those admissions way down, Dr. Sellke said.

chackett@frontlinemedcom.com

The emphasis on this year’s American Heart Association Scientific Sessions in New Orleans is bigness: “Big science, big technology, and big networking opportunities,” the AHA 16 website says.

And so the 19 abstracts out of thousands submitted that got the biggest score from program committee for AHA 2016, led by Frank Sellke, MD, were chosen for presentation at four Late-Breaking Clinical Trials session previewed the late-breaking science.

CrackerClips/Thinkstock

Big trials for big questions

The first late-breaker session, on Sunday, Nov. 13, at 3:45 p.m., CT, is titled will, as its title says present the long-awaited results of four trials with large enrollment and long-term outcomes.

EUCLID (A Study Comparing Cardiovascular Effects of Ticagrelor and Clopidogrel in Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease) randomized an estimated 16,000 patients with symptomatic PAD to long-term antiplatelet monotherapy with either ticagrelor or clopidogrel to see which one would be superior in preventing the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke up to 40 months. Secondarily, it looked at acute limb ischemia, need for revascularization, and disease progression. “This could have tremendous implications for patients treat for pad trying to prevent CV disease,” Dr. Sellke said.

PRECISION (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety vs Ibuprofen or Naproxen) harks back to 2005, when the Food and Drug Administration, wrestling with the growing evidence that NSAIDs were linked with cardiovascular events, asked for a large, cardiovascular outcomes trial. PRECISION, sponsored by Pfizer but run by an academic-led steering committee led by Steven Nissen, MD, now chief of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, randomized some 20,000 arthritis patients with or at risk for cardiovascular disease to long-term pain treatment with celecoxib, naproxen, or ibuprofen for a planned follow-up of 2 years. The primary endpoint is a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke. Dr. Sellke noted that the results will be important for many physicians and patients wanting to minimize the risks associated with NSAIDs.

HOPE 3 (Heart Outcomes Evaluation 3), presented in April this year at the American College of Cardiology meeting in Chicago, showed the combination of rosuvastatin plus candesartan and hydrochlorothiazide reduced cardiovascular events in intermediate-risk patients with hypertension, regardless of their baseline LDL cholesterol and inflammatory biomarker levels. The analysis to be presented at AHA will show whether the combination has any effect on cognitive function. As evidence builds of the cardiovascular benefit of aggressive treatment of hypertension, as in the SPRINT trial, the results could be tremendously important, Dr. Sellke said.

TRUE AHF (Efficacy and Safety of Ularitide for the Treatment of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure) randomized about 2,150 patients with acute decompensated heart failure to receive a 48-hour intravenous infusion of the natriuretic peptide ularitide or placebo. The primary outcome is a composite of 48-hour improved in-hospital worsening or unchanged clinical conditions, as well as long-term cardiovascular mortality with a median follow-up of 7 months. Because there are no effective treatments for acute systolic heart failure, the results of TRUE AHF could be of tremendous benefit, Dr. Sellke said.

Pioneering the Future of HeART Interventions

The trials with the greatest impact for practice to be presented at AHA 2015, according to the Dr. Sellke’s admitted bias as a cardiothoracic surgeon, will all be presented in this second of the late-breaker sessions, on Monday, Nov. 14, at 10:45 a.m., CT.

ART (Arterial Revascularization Trial) was a comparison of single vs. bilateral internal mammary artery grafting in more than 3,000 randomized patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG). The outcomes of mortality, stroke, MI, and repeat revascularization were published in 2010, showing no differences between groups. The 5-year results to be presented on Monday may resolve some of the controversy surrounding the two methods, as surgeons and cardiologists are strongly divided on the benefits and risks of single, compared with double, internal mammary artery grafting.

FUTURE (Functional Testing Underlying Coronary Revascularization) compared fractional flow reserve–guided management with conventional management in roughly 900 patients undergoing revascularization with multivessel coronary artery disease. The primary outcome is a composite of death, MI, coronary revascularization, and stroke. FFR has received a lot of attention recently, Dr. Sellke said, because it looks at the physiologic, rather than the anatomic, effects of lesion on catheterization. The results will show whether there’s clinical benefit to adding FFR to angiography that will offset the additional time it takes to perform before PCI or CABG.

PIONEER AF-PCI (An Open-label, Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter Study Exploring Two Treatment Strategies of Rivaroxaban and a Dose-Adjusted Oral Vitamin K Antagonist Treatment Strategy in Subjects With Atrial Fibrillation Who Undergo Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) addressed the conundrum of treating anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation who are undergoing PCI with adequate dual-antiplatelet therapy – and avoiding bleeding events. About 2,000 patients were randomized to varying combinations of rivaroxaban or warfarin plus aspirin, ticagrelor prasugrel, and/or clopidogrel for 1 year. The primary outcome is significant bleeding. Dr. Sellke said that because drug-eluting stents require at least a year of DAPT, the PIONEER AF-PCI results will add knowledge in an important and controversial area.

GERMANY is a report from the German Aortic Valve Registry (GARY) on the 1-year outcomes of patients with intermediate-risk severe aortic stenosis who underwent either transcatheter or surgical aortic replacement on the efficacy and outcomes of the two approaches. Dr. Sellke noted that these results will be important because the patients in this registry were not at high risk or ineligible for surgical aortic replacement.

Insights from New Therapeutic Trials for Lipids

Of the five trials presented in this session on Tuesday, Nov. 15, at 10:45 a.m., CT, only one is in an approved treatment for lowering lipids. That is GLAGOV (Global Assessment of Plaque Regression With a PCSK9 Antibody as Measured by Intravascular Ultrasound), is looking at whether LDL lowering with the PCSK9 inhibitor evolocumab reduces atheroma volume in almost 1,000 patients.

Guiding the Momentum to Effect HF Outcomes – Ironing Out the Wrinkles

Two of the six heart failure trials presented in this session on Wednesday, Nov. 16, at 10:45 a.m., CT, study cardiorespiratory effects of iron, thus the title, Dr. Sellke said.

REDUCE LAP HF (A Study to Evaluate the DC Devices, Inc. IASD System II to REDUCE Elevated Left Atrial Pressure in Patients With Heart Failure). The primary outcome is a composite of death, stroke, MI, or a systemic embolic event at 6 months. The trial evaluated a transcatheter interatrial shunt device to left atrial pressure in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). In this type of diastolic heart failure in which patients’ hearts cannot relax, there is really no treatment, Dr. Sellke said. So although this treatment seems “hokey,” a positive result could be important.

ATHENA HF (Aldosterone Targeted Neurohormonal Combined with Natriuresis Therapy in Heart Failure) tested the diuretic spironolactone in heart failure. The investigators randomized 360 patients to high-dose spironolactone or usual care to see whether they could provide greater reductions of n-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels within 96 hours. There’s evidence that spironolactone can provide symptomatic relief for patients with heart failure, so these results could be important, Dr. Sellke said.

IRONOUT HF (Oral Iron Repletion Effects on Oxygen Up Take in Heart Failure) randomized heart failure patients with iron deficiency to oral iron supplementation or placebo and measured peak oxygen uptake at 16 weeks.

EFFECT-HF (Effect of Ferric Carboxymaltose on Exercise Capacity in Patients with Iron Deficiency and Chronic Heart Failure) also studied the effect of iron supplementation, intravenous in this case, on exercise capacity in heart failure patients at 24 weeks. Iron depletion is a hallmark of heart failure, Dr. Sellke pointed out, so iron repletion could be a simple way to improve functional capacity.

MOMENTUM 3 (Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HM3) evaluated the safety and effectiveness of the Thoratec HeartMate 3 left-ventricular assist device employing MagLev technology, which is said to facilitate the free flow of blood through the device. Roughly 1,000 patients with advanced, refractory heart failure were randomized to receive either the investigational HeartMate 3 or the HeartMate 2. The primary outcomes included short- and long-term survival and freedom from debilitating stroke. Trials such as this are very important, Dr. Sellke said, because the need for donor hearts far exceeds demand and better, cheaper LVADs that last longer could extend the lives of many thousands of patients every year.

MultiSENSE (Evaluation of Multisensor Data in Heart Failure Patients With Implanted Devices) collected information taken from sensors in an implanted cardiac synchronization therapy device in 1,000 patients to develop algorithms that would detect worsening heart failure. Multiple readmissions for heart failure are frequent and ineffective, and detecting the onset of worsening heart failure has the potential to bring those admissions way down, Dr. Sellke said.

chackett@frontlinemedcom.com

The emphasis on this year’s American Heart Association Scientific Sessions in New Orleans is bigness: “Big science, big technology, and big networking opportunities,” the AHA 16 website says.

And so the 19 abstracts out of thousands submitted that got the biggest score from program committee for AHA 2016, led by Frank Sellke, MD, were chosen for presentation at four Late-Breaking Clinical Trials session previewed the late-breaking science.

CrackerClips/Thinkstock

Big trials for big questions

The first late-breaker session, on Sunday, Nov. 13, at 3:45 p.m., CT, is titled will, as its title says present the long-awaited results of four trials with large enrollment and long-term outcomes.

EUCLID (A Study Comparing Cardiovascular Effects of Ticagrelor and Clopidogrel in Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease) randomized an estimated 16,000 patients with symptomatic PAD to long-term antiplatelet monotherapy with either ticagrelor or clopidogrel to see which one would be superior in preventing the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke up to 40 months. Secondarily, it looked at acute limb ischemia, need for revascularization, and disease progression. “This could have tremendous implications for patients treat for pad trying to prevent CV disease,” Dr. Sellke said.

PRECISION (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety vs Ibuprofen or Naproxen) harks back to 2005, when the Food and Drug Administration, wrestling with the growing evidence that NSAIDs were linked with cardiovascular events, asked for a large, cardiovascular outcomes trial. PRECISION, sponsored by Pfizer but run by an academic-led steering committee led by Steven Nissen, MD, now chief of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, randomized some 20,000 arthritis patients with or at risk for cardiovascular disease to long-term pain treatment with celecoxib, naproxen, or ibuprofen for a planned follow-up of 2 years. The primary endpoint is a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke. Dr. Sellke noted that the results will be important for many physicians and patients wanting to minimize the risks associated with NSAIDs.

HOPE 3 (Heart Outcomes Evaluation 3), presented in April this year at the American College of Cardiology meeting in Chicago, showed the combination of rosuvastatin plus candesartan and hydrochlorothiazide reduced cardiovascular events in intermediate-risk patients with hypertension, regardless of their baseline LDL cholesterol and inflammatory biomarker levels. The analysis to be presented at AHA will show whether the combination has any effect on cognitive function. As evidence builds of the cardiovascular benefit of aggressive treatment of hypertension, as in the SPRINT trial, the results could be tremendously important, Dr. Sellke said.

TRUE AHF (Efficacy and Safety of Ularitide for the Treatment of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure) randomized about 2,150 patients with acute decompensated heart failure to receive a 48-hour intravenous infusion of the natriuretic peptide ularitide or placebo. The primary outcome is a composite of 48-hour improved in-hospital worsening or unchanged clinical conditions, as well as long-term cardiovascular mortality with a median follow-up of 7 months. Because there are no effective treatments for acute systolic heart failure, the results of TRUE AHF could be of tremendous benefit, Dr. Sellke said.

Pioneering the Future of HeART Interventions

The trials with the greatest impact for practice to be presented at AHA 2015, according to the Dr. Sellke’s admitted bias as a cardiothoracic surgeon, will all be presented in this second of the late-breaker sessions, on Monday, Nov. 14, at 10:45 a.m., CT.

ART (Arterial Revascularization Trial) was a comparison of single vs. bilateral internal mammary artery grafting in more than 3,000 randomized patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG). The outcomes of mortality, stroke, MI, and repeat revascularization were published in 2010, showing no differences between groups. The 5-year results to be presented on Monday may resolve some of the controversy surrounding the two methods, as surgeons and cardiologists are strongly divided on the benefits and risks of single, compared with double, internal mammary artery grafting.

FUTURE (Functional Testing Underlying Coronary Revascularization) compared fractional flow reserve–guided management with conventional management in roughly 900 patients undergoing revascularization with multivessel coronary artery disease. The primary outcome is a composite of death, MI, coronary revascularization, and stroke. FFR has received a lot of attention recently, Dr. Sellke said, because it looks at the physiologic, rather than the anatomic, effects of lesion on catheterization. The results will show whether there’s clinical benefit to adding FFR to angiography that will offset the additional time it takes to perform before PCI or CABG.

PIONEER AF-PCI (An Open-label, Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter Study Exploring Two Treatment Strategies of Rivaroxaban and a Dose-Adjusted Oral Vitamin K Antagonist Treatment Strategy in Subjects With Atrial Fibrillation Who Undergo Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) addressed the conundrum of treating anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation who are undergoing PCI with adequate dual-antiplatelet therapy – and avoiding bleeding events. About 2,000 patients were randomized to varying combinations of rivaroxaban or warfarin plus aspirin, ticagrelor prasugrel, and/or clopidogrel for 1 year. The primary outcome is significant bleeding. Dr. Sellke said that because drug-eluting stents require at least a year of DAPT, the PIONEER AF-PCI results will add knowledge in an important and controversial area.

GERMANY is a report from the German Aortic Valve Registry (GARY) on the 1-year outcomes of patients with intermediate-risk severe aortic stenosis who underwent either transcatheter or surgical aortic replacement on the efficacy and outcomes of the two approaches. Dr. Sellke noted that these results will be important because the patients in this registry were not at high risk or ineligible for surgical aortic replacement.

Insights from New Therapeutic Trials for Lipids

Of the five trials presented in this session on Tuesday, Nov. 15, at 10:45 a.m., CT, only one is in an approved treatment for lowering lipids. That is GLAGOV (Global Assessment of Plaque Regression With a PCSK9 Antibody as Measured by Intravascular Ultrasound), is looking at whether LDL lowering with the PCSK9 inhibitor evolocumab reduces atheroma volume in almost 1,000 patients.

Guiding the Momentum to Effect HF Outcomes – Ironing Out the Wrinkles

Two of the six heart failure trials presented in this session on Wednesday, Nov. 16, at 10:45 a.m., CT, study cardiorespiratory effects of iron, thus the title, Dr. Sellke said.

REDUCE LAP HF (A Study to Evaluate the DC Devices, Inc. IASD System II to REDUCE Elevated Left Atrial Pressure in Patients With Heart Failure). The primary outcome is a composite of death, stroke, MI, or a systemic embolic event at 6 months. The trial evaluated a transcatheter interatrial shunt device to left atrial pressure in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). In this type of diastolic heart failure in which patients’ hearts cannot relax, there is really no treatment, Dr. Sellke said. So although this treatment seems “hokey,” a positive result could be important.

ATHENA HF (Aldosterone Targeted Neurohormonal Combined with Natriuresis Therapy in Heart Failure) tested the diuretic spironolactone in heart failure. The investigators randomized 360 patients to high-dose spironolactone or usual care to see whether they could provide greater reductions of n-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels within 96 hours. There’s evidence that spironolactone can provide symptomatic relief for patients with heart failure, so these results could be important, Dr. Sellke said.

IRONOUT HF (Oral Iron Repletion Effects on Oxygen Up Take in Heart Failure) randomized heart failure patients with iron deficiency to oral iron supplementation or placebo and measured peak oxygen uptake at 16 weeks.

EFFECT-HF (Effect of Ferric Carboxymaltose on Exercise Capacity in Patients with Iron Deficiency and Chronic Heart Failure) also studied the effect of iron supplementation, intravenous in this case, on exercise capacity in heart failure patients at 24 weeks. Iron depletion is a hallmark of heart failure, Dr. Sellke pointed out, so iron repletion could be a simple way to improve functional capacity.

MOMENTUM 3 (Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HM3) evaluated the safety and effectiveness of the Thoratec HeartMate 3 left-ventricular assist device employing MagLev technology, which is said to facilitate the free flow of blood through the device. Roughly 1,000 patients with advanced, refractory heart failure were randomized to receive either the investigational HeartMate 3 or the HeartMate 2. The primary outcomes included short- and long-term survival and freedom from debilitating stroke. Trials such as this are very important, Dr. Sellke said, because the need for donor hearts far exceeds demand and better, cheaper LVADs that last longer could extend the lives of many thousands of patients every year.

MultiSENSE (Evaluation of Multisensor Data in Heart Failure Patients With Implanted Devices) collected information taken from sensors in an implanted cardiac synchronization therapy device in 1,000 patients to develop algorithms that would detect worsening heart failure. Multiple readmissions for heart failure are frequent and ineffective, and detecting the onset of worsening heart failure has the potential to bring those admissions way down, Dr. Sellke said.

chackett@frontlinemedcom.com