Managing Stable Ischemic Heart Disease Antman, Elliott M; Braunwald, Eugene
The New England journal of medicine,
04/2020, Letnik:
382, Številka:
15
Journal Article
Precision medicine in cardiology Antman, Elliott M; Loscalzo, Joseph
Nature reviews cardiology,
10/2016, Letnik:
13, Številka:
10
Journal Article
Recenzirano
The cardiovascular research and clinical communities are ideally positioned to address the epidemic of noncommunicable causes of death, as well as advance our understanding of human health and ...disease, through the development and implementation of precision medicine. New tools will be needed for describing the cardiovascular health status of individuals and populations, including 'omic' data, exposome and social determinants of health, the microbiome, behaviours and motivations, patient-generated data, and the array of data in electronic medical records. Cardiovascular specialists can build on their experience and use precision medicine to facilitate discovery science and improve the efficiency of clinical research, with the goal of providing more precise information to improve the health of individuals and populations. Overcoming the barriers to implementing precision medicine will require addressing a range of technical and sociopolitical issues. Health care under precision medicine will become a more integrated, dynamic system, in which patients are no longer a passive entity on whom measurements are made, but instead are central stakeholders who contribute data and participate actively in shared decision-making. Many traditionally defined diseases have common mechanisms; therefore, elimination of a siloed approach to medicine will ultimately pave the path to the creation of a universal precision medicine environment.
Some drugs used to treat noncardiovascular conditions may adversely impact the cardiovascular status of individuals both with and without known cardiovascular disease. When the US Food and Drug ...Administration judges the potential cardiovascular safety signal to be of sufficient concern, it may require the pharmaceutical manufacturer of the drug in question to conduct a postmarketing (phase 4) randomized controlled trial (RCT). Although historically many phase 4 RCTs focused on efficacy (using a superiority design), contemporary phase 4 RCTs often are focused on safety and use a noninferiority design. The choices made by investigators during the planning stage of a postmarketing phase 4 RCT dedicated to the evaluation of cardiovascular safety can influence the ability to compare the standard and test agents. Multiple factors reflecting the conduct of a phase 4 RCT for a general medical condition may influence interpretation of a cardiovascular safety signal. The higher the rates of failure to adhere to the protocol and dropout from the study, the greater the risk of bias. Trials evaluating the cardiovascular safety of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) when used for arthritis are difficult to conduct and even more challenging to interpret. Concerns include the comparison of drug regimens that do not provide comparable analgesic efficacy and problems with adherence to the protocol and retention in the study. On the basis of phase 4 RCTs of NSAIDs to date, it appears that a comparatively low dose of celecoxib administered to low-risk subjects is associated with approximately the same cardiovascular risk as NSAIDs with less cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitory activity, but at the cost of not controlling arthritic pain as effectively.
Summary Background Four new oral anticoagulants compare favourably with warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation; however, the balance between efficacy and safety in ...subgroups needs better definition. We aimed to assess the relative benefit of new oral anticoagulants in key subgroups, and the effects on important secondary outcomes. Methods We searched Medline from Jan 1, 2009, to Nov 19, 2013, limiting searches to phase 3, randomised trials of patients with atrial fibrillation who were randomised to receive new oral anticoagulants or warfarin, and trials in which both efficacy and safety outcomes were reported. We did a prespecified meta-analysis of all 71 683 participants included in the RE-LY, ROCKET AF, ARISTOTLE, and ENGAGE AF–TIMI 48 trials. The main outcomes were stroke and systemic embolic events, ischaemic stroke, haemorrhagic stroke, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, major bleeding, intracranial haemorrhage, and gastrointestinal bleeding. We calculated relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs for each outcome. We did subgroup analyses to assess whether differences in patient and trial characteristics affected outcomes. We used a random-effects model to compare pooled outcomes and tested for heterogeneity. Findings 42 411 participants received a new oral anticoagulant and 29 272 participants received warfarin. New oral anticoagulants significantly reduced stroke or systemic embolic events by 19% compared with warfarin (RR 0·81, 95% CI 0·73–0·91; p<0·0001), mainly driven by a reduction in haemorrhagic stroke (0·49, 0·38–0·64; p<0·0001). New oral anticoagulants also significantly reduced all-cause mortality (0·90, 0·85–0·95; p=0·0003) and intracranial haemorrhage (0·48, 0·39–0·59; p<0·0001), but increased gastrointestinal bleeding (1·25, 1·01–1·55; p=0·04). We noted no heterogeneity for stroke or systemic embolic events in important subgroups, but there was a greater relative reduction in major bleeding with new oral anticoagulants when the centre-based time in therapeutic range was less than 66% than when it was 66% or more (0·69, 0·59–0·81 vs 0·93, 0·76–1·13; p for interaction 0·022). Low-dose new oral anticoagulant regimens showed similar overall reductions in stroke or systemic embolic events to warfarin (1·03, 0·84–1·27; p=0·74), and a more favourable bleeding profile (0·65, 0·43–1·00; p=0·05), but significantly more ischaemic strokes (1·28, 1·02–1·60; p=0·045). Interpretation This meta-analysis is the first to include data for all four new oral anticoagulants studied in the pivotal phase 3 clinical trials for stroke prevention or systemic embolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation. New oral anticoagulants had a favourable risk–benefit profile, with significant reductions in stroke, intracranial haemorrhage, and mortality, and with similar major bleeding as for warfarin, but increased gastrointestinal bleeding. The relative efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants was consistent across a wide range of patients. Our findings offer clinicians a more comprehensive picture of the new oral anticoagulants as a therapeutic option to reduce the risk of stroke in this patient population. Funding None.
Abstract Background The use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) instead of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and coexisting valvular heart ...disease (VHD) is of substantial interest. Objectives This study explored outcomes in patients with AF with and without VHD in the ENGAGE AF–TIMI 48 (Effective Anticoagulation with factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 48) trial, comparing edoxaban with warfarin. Methods Valvular heart disease was defined as history or baseline echocardiography evidence of at least moderate aortic/mitral regurgitation, aortic stenosis, or prior valve surgery (bioprosthesis replacement, valve repair, valvuloplasty). Patients with moderate to severe mitral stenosis or mechanical heart valves were excluded from the trial. Comparisons were made of rates of stroke/systemic embolic event (SSEE), major bleeding, additional efficacy and safety outcomes, as well as net clinical outcomes, in patients with or without VHD treated with edoxaban or warfarin, using adjusted Cox proportional hazards. Results After adjustment for multiple baseline characteristics, compared with no-VHD patients (n = 18,222), VHD patients (n = 2,824) had a similar rate of SSEE but higher rates of death (hazard ratio HR: 1.40; 95% confidence interval CI:1.26 to 1.56; p <0.001), major adverse cardiovascular events (HR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.43; p <0.001), and major bleeding (HR: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.42; p = 0.02). Higher-dose edoxaban regimen had efficacy similar to warfarin in the presence of VHD (for SSEE, HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.44 to 1.07, in patients with VHD, and HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.07, in patients without VHD; p interaction pint = 0.26; and for less major bleeding, HR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.02 in patients with VHD, and HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.71 to 0.94, in patients with no VHD; pint = 0.57). Conclusions The presence of VHD increased the risk of death, major adverse cardiovascular events, and major bleeding but did not affect the relative efficacy or safety of higher-dose edoxaban versus warfarin in AF. (Global Study to Assess the Safety and Effectiveness of Edoxaban (DU-176b) vs. Standard Practice of Dosing With Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48; NCT00781391 )
Summary Background New oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation were developed to be given in fixed doses without the need for the routine monitoring that has hindered usage ...and acceptance of vitamin K antagonists. A concern has emerged, however, that measurement of drug concentration or anticoagulant activity might be needed to prevent excess drug concentrations, which significantly increase bleeding risk. In the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial, higher-dose and lower-dose edoxaban were compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. Each regimen incorporated a 50% dose reduction in patients with clinical features known to increase edoxaban drug exposure. We aim to assess whether adjustment of edoxaban dose in this trial prevented excess drug concentration and the risk of bleeding events. Methods We analysed data from the randomised, double-blind ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial. We correlated edoxaban dose, plasma concentration, and anti-Factor Xa (FXa) activity and compared efficacy and safety outcomes with warfarin stratified by dose reduction status. Patients with atrial fibrillation and at moderate to high risk of stroke were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive warfarin, dose adjusted to an international normalised ratio of 2·0–3·0, higher-dose edoxaban (60 mg once daily), or lower-dose edoxaban (30 mg once daily). Randomisation was done with use of a central, 24 h, interactive, computerised response system. International normalised ratio was measured using an encrypted point-of-care device. To maintain masking, sham international normalised ratio values were generated for patients assigned to edoxaban. Edoxaban (or placebo-edoxaban in warfarin group) doses were halved at randomisation or during the trial if patients had creatinine clearance 30–50 mL/min, bodyweight 60 kg or less, or concomitant medication with potent P-glycoprotein interaction. Efficacy outcomes included the primary endpoint of all-cause stroke or systemic embolism, ischaemic stroke, and all-cause mortality. Safety outcomes included the primary safety endpoint of major bleeding, fatal bleeding, intracranial haemorrhage, and gastrointestinal bleeding. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00781391. Findings Between Nov 19, 2008 and Nov 22, 2010, 21 105 patients were recruited. Patients who met clinical criteria for dose reduction at randomisation (n=5356) had higher rates of stroke, bleeding, and death compared with those who did not have a dose reduction (n=15 749). Edoxaban dose ranged from 15 mg to 60 mg, resulting in a two-fold to three fold gradient of mean trough drug exposure (16·0–48·5 ng/mL in 6780 patients with data available) and mean trough anti-FXa activity (0·35–0·85 IU/mL in 2865 patients). Dose reduction decreased mean exposure by 29% (from 48·5 ng/mL SD 45·8 to 34·6 ng/mL 30·9) and 35% (from 24·5 ng/mL 22·7 to 16·0 ng/mL 14·5) and mean anti-FXa activity by 25% (from 0·85 IU/mL 0·76 to 0·64 IU/mL 0·54) and 20% (from 0·44 IU/mL 0·37 to 0·35 IU/mL 0·28) in the higher-dose and lower-dose regimens, respectively. Despite the lower anti-FXa activity, dose reduction preserved the efficacy of edoxaban compared with warfarin (stroke or systemic embolic event: higher dose pinteraction =0·85, lower dose pinteraction =0·99) and provided even greater safety (major bleeding: higher dose pinteraction 0·02, lower dose pinteraction =0·002). Interpretation These findings validate the strategy that tailoring of the dose of edoxaban on the basis of clinical factors alone achieves the dual goal of preventing excess drug concentrations and helps to optimise an individual patient's risk of ischaemic and bleeding events and show that the therapeutic window for edoxaban is narrower for major bleeding than thromboembolism. Funding Daiichi-Sankyo Pharma Development.
Abstract
Cardiovascular disease risk factor profiles and health behaviors are known to differ between women and men. Sex-based differences in ideal cardiovascular health were examined in the My ...Research Legacy study, which collected cardiovascular health and lifestyle data via Life’s Simple 7 survey and digital health devices. As the study overenrolled women (n = 1251) compared to men (n = 310), we hypothesized that heterogeneity among women would affect comparisons of ideal cardiovascular health. We identified 2 phenogroups of women in our study cohort by cluster analysis. The phenogroups differed significantly across all 7 cardiovascular health and behavior domains (all p < 0.01) with women in phenogroup 1 having a lower Life’s Simple 7 Health Score than those in phenogroup 2 (5.9 ± 1.3 vs. 7.6 ± 1.3, p < 0.01). Compared to men, women in phenogroup 1 had a higher burden of cardiovascular disease risk factors, exercised less, and had lower ideal cardiovascular health scores (p < 0.01). In contrast, women in phenogroup 2 had fewer cardiovascular risk factors but similar exercise habits and higher ideal cardiovascular health scores than men (p < 0.01). These findings suggest that heterogeneity among study participants should be examined when evaluating sex-based differences in ideal cardiovascular health.
Adherence to medications that are prescribed after myocardial infarction is poor. Eliminating out-of-pocket costs may increase adherence and improve outcomes.
We enrolled patients discharged after ...myocardial infarction and randomly assigned their insurance-plan sponsors to full prescription coverage (1494 plan sponsors with 2845 patients) or usual prescription coverage (1486 plan sponsors with 3010 patients) for all statins, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, or angiotensin-receptor blockers. The primary outcome was the first major vascular event or revascularization. Secondary outcomes were rates of medication adherence, total major vascular events or revascularization, the first major vascular event, and health expenditures.
Rates of adherence ranged from 35.9 to 49.0% in the usual-coverage group and were 4 to 6 percentage points higher in the full-coverage group (P<0.001 for all comparisons). There was no significant between-group difference in the primary outcome (17.6 per 100 person-years in the full-coverage group vs. 18.8 in the usual-coverage group; hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.82 to 1.04; P=0.21). The rates of total major vascular events or revascularization were significantly reduced in the full-coverage group (21.5 vs. 23.3; hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.90 to 0.99; P=0.03), as was the rate of the first major vascular event (11.0 vs. 12.8; hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.99; P=0.03). The elimination of copayments did not increase total spending ($66,008 for the full-coverage group and $71,778 for the usual-coverage group; relative spending, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.56; P=0.68). Patient costs were reduced for drugs and other services (relative spending, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.80; P<0.001).
The elimination of copayments for drugs prescribed after myocardial infarction did not significantly reduce rates of the trial's primary outcome. Enhanced prescription coverage improved medication adherence and rates of first major vascular events and decreased patient spending without increasing overall health costs. (Funded by Aetna and the Commonwealth Fund; MI FREEE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00566774.).
PDF
