The aim of the present review is to analyze how thinking about the cardiovascular safety of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs has evolved during the past two decades, and discuss to what extent the ...additional information from the Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety Versus Ibuprofen or Naproxen study may alter our current mechanistic understanding and/or clinical practice.
Despite current practice, patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at increased risk of progression to end-stage renal disease and cardiovascular events. Neprilysin inhibition (NEPi) is a new ...therapeutic strategy with potential to improve outcomes for patients with CKD. NEPi enhances the activity of natriuretic peptide systems leading to natriuresis, diuresis and inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS), which could act as a potentially beneficial counter-regulatory system in states of RAS activation such as chronic heart failure (HF) and CKD. Early NEPi drugs were combined with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors but were associated with unacceptable rates of angioedema and, therefore, withdrawn. However, one such agent (omapatrilat) showed promise of NEP/RAS inhibition in treating CKD in animal models, producing greater reductions in proteinuria, glomerulosclerosis and tubulointerstitial fibrosis compared with isolated RAS inhibition. A new class of drug called angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi) has been developed. One such drug, LCZ696, has shown substantial benefits in trials in hypertension and HF. In CKD, HF is common due to a range of mechanisms including hypertension and structural heart disease (including left ventricular hypertrophy), suggesting that ARNi could benefit patients with CKD by both retarding the progression of CKD (hence delaying the need for renal replacement therapy) and reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease. LCZ696 is now being studied in a CKD population.
Niacin has potentially favourable effects on lipids, but its effect on cardiovascular outcomes is uncertain. HPS2-THRIVE is a large randomized trial assessing the effects of extended release (ER) ...niacin in patients at high risk of vascular events.
Prior to randomization, 42 424 patients with occlusive arterial disease were given simvastatin 40 mg plus, if required, ezetimibe 10 mg daily to standardize their low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-lowering therapy. The ability to remain compliant with ER niacin 2 g plus laropiprant 40 mg daily (ERN/LRPT) for ~1 month was then assessed in 38 369 patients and about one-third were excluded (mainly due to niacin side effects). A total of 25 673 patients were randomized between ERN/LRPT daily vs. placebo and were followed for a median of 3.9 years. By the end of the study, 25% of participants allocated ERN/LRPT vs. 17% allocated placebo had stopped their study treatment. The most common medical reasons for stopping ERN/LRPT were related to skin, gastrointestinal, diabetes, and musculoskeletal side effects. When added to statin-based LDL-lowering therapy, allocation to ERN/LRPT increased the risk of definite myopathy 75 (0.16%/year) vs. 17 (0.04%/year): risk ratio 4.4; 95% CI 2.6-7.5; P < 0.0001; 7 vs. 5 were rhabdomyolysis. Any myopathy (definite or incipient) was more common among participants in China 138 (0.66%/year) vs. 27 (0.13%/year) than among those in Europe 17 (0.07%/year) vs. 11 (0.04%/year). Consecutive alanine transaminase >3× upper limit of normal, in the absence of muscle damage, was seen in 48 (0.10%/year) ERN/LRPT vs. 30 (0.06%/year) placebo allocated participants.
The risk of myopathy was increased by adding ERN/LRPT to simvastatin 40 mg daily (with or without ezetimibe), particularly in Chinese patients whose myopathy rates on simvastatin were higher. Despite the side effects of ERN/LRPT, among individuals who were able to tolerate it for ~1 month, three-quarters continued to take it for ~4 years.
Abstract
Aims
REVEAL was the first randomized controlled trial to demonstrate that adding cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor therapy to intensive statin therapy reduced the risk of major ...coronary events. We now report results from extended follow-up beyond the scheduled study treatment period.
Methods and results
A total of 30 449 adults with prior atherosclerotic vascular disease were randomly allocated to anacetrapib 100 mg daily or matching placebo, in addition to open-label atorvastatin therapy. After stopping the randomly allocated treatment, 26 129 survivors entered a post-trial follow-up period, blind to their original treatment allocation. The primary outcome was first post-randomization major coronary event (i.e. coronary death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization) during the in-trial and post-trial treatment periods, with analysis by intention-to-treat. Allocation to anacetrapib conferred a 9% 95% confidence interval (CI) 3–15%; P = 0.004 proportional reduction in the incidence of major coronary events during the study treatment period (median 4.1 years). During extended follow-up (median 2.2 years), there was a further 20% (95% CI 10–29%; P < 0.001) reduction. Overall, there was a 12% (95% CI 7–17%, P < 0.001) proportional reduction in major coronary events during the overall follow-up period (median 6.3 years), corresponding to a 1.8% (95% CI 1.0–2.6%) absolute reduction. There were no significant effects on non-vascular mortality, site-specific cancer, or other serious adverse events. Morbidity follow-up was obtained for 25 784 (99%) participants.
Conclusion
The beneficial effects of anacetrapib on major coronary events increased with longer follow-up, and no adverse effects emerged on non-vascular mortality or morbidity. These findings illustrate the importance of sufficiently long treatment and follow-up duration in randomized trials of lipid-modifying agents to assess their full benefits and potential harms.
Trial registration
International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 48678192; ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT01252953; EudraCT No. 2010-023467-18.
Structured Graphical Abstract
Structured Graphical Abstract
Objective To define the cardiovascular effects of lowering blood pressure in people with chronic kidney disease.Design Collaborative prospective meta-analysis of randomised trials.Data sources and ...eligibility Participating randomised trials of drugs to lower blood pressure compared with placebo or each other or that compare different blood pressure targets, with at least 1000 patient years of follow-up per arm.Main outcome measures Major cardiovascular events (stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, or cardiovascular death) in composite and individually and all cause death.Participants 26 trials (152 290 participants), including 30 295 individuals with reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), which was defined as eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73m2.Data extraction Individual participant data were available for 23 trials, with summary data from another three. Meta-analysis according to baseline kidney function was performed. Pooled hazard ratios per 5 mm Hg lower blood pressure were estimated with a random effects model.Results Compared with placebo, blood pressure lowering regimens reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events by about a sixth per 5 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure in individuals with (hazard ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.76 to 0.90) and without reduced eGFR (0.83, 0.79 to 0.88), with no evidence for any difference in effect (P=1.00 for homogeneity). The results were similar irrespective of whether blood pressure was reduced by regimens based on angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, calcium antagonists, or diuretics/β blockers. There was no evidence that the effects of different drug classes on major cardiovascular events varied between patients with different eGFR (all P>0.60 for homogeneity).Conclusions Blood pressure lowering is an effective strategy for preventing cardiovascular events among people with moderately reduced eGFR. There is little evidence from these overviews to support the preferential choice of particular drug classes for the prevention of cardiovascular events in chronic kidney disease.
To assess the benefits in terms of reductions in the risks of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and of pulmonary embolism (PE), and hazards in terms of major bleeding, of: (i) mechanical compression; (ii) ...oral anticoagulants; (iii) dextran; and (iv) regional anaesthesia (as an alternative to general anaesthesia) in surgical and medical patients.
Electronic databases, search of Antithrombotic Trialists' Collaboration database, contact with trialists and manufacturers.
All trials identified as fitting the selection criteria were independently assessed. The primary outcomes were DVT, PE and major bleeding events, and proximal venous thrombosis (PVT) and fatal PE were secondary outcomes. Trials were subdivided into those that had assessed a method as the only means of thromboprophylaxis ('monotherapy') and those that had assessed the effects of adding a method to another form of thromboprophylaxis ('adjunctive therapy').
Mechanical compression methods reduced the risk of DVT by about two-thirds when used as monotherapy and by about half when added to a pharmacological method. These benefits were similar irrespective of the particular method used (graduated compression stockings, intermittent pneumatic compression or footpumps) and were similar in each of the surgical groups studied. Mechanical methods reduced the risk of PVT by about half and the risk of PE by two-fifths. Oral anticoagulants, when used as monotherapy, reduced the risk of DVT and of PVT by about half, and this protective effect appeared similar in each of the surgical groups studied. There was an apparently large four-fifths reduction in the role of PE, but not only was the magnitude of this reduction statistically uncertain, but also pulmonary embolism was reported by a minority of trials, so it may be subject to selection bias. Oral anticoagulant regimens approximately doubled the risk of major bleeding and appeared less effective at preventing DVT than heparin regimens, although were associated with less major bleeding. Dextran reduced the risk of DVT and of PVT by about half, again irrespective of the type of surgery, but too few studies had reported PE to provide reliable estimates of effect on this outcome. Dextran appeared to be less effective at preventing DVT than the heparin regimens studied. Dextran was associated with an increased risk of bleeding, but too few bleeds had occurred for the size of this excess risk to be estimated reliably. Compared with general anaesthesia, regional anaesthesia reduced the risk of DVT by about half, and this benefit appeared similar in each of the surgical settings studied. Regional anaesthesia was associated with less major bleeding than general anaesthesia.
In the absence of a clear contraindication (such as severe peripheral arterial disease), patients undergoing a surgical procedure would be expected to derive net benefit from a mechanical compression method of thromboprophylaxis (such as graduated compression stockings), irrespective of their absolute risk of venous thromboembolism. Patients who are considered to be at particularly high risk of venous thromboembolism may also benefit from a pharmacological thromboprophylactic agent, but since oral anticoagulant and dextran regimens appear less effective at preventing DVT than standard low-dose unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparin regimens, they may be less suitable for patients at high risk of venous thromboembolism, even though they are associated with less bleeding. Whenever feasible, the use of regional anaesthesia as an alternative to general anaesthesia may also provide additional protection against venous thromboembolism. There is little information on the prevention of venous thromboembolism among high-risk medical patients (such as those with stroke), so further randomised trials in this area would be helpful.
Abstract The Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration was originally established to conduct individual patient data meta-analyses of major vascular events, cause-specific mortality and ...site-specific cancers in large, long-term, randomized trials of statin therapy (and other cholesterol-modifying treatments). The results of the trials of statin therapy, and their associated meta-analyses, have shown that statins significantly reduce the risk of major vascular events without any increase in the risk of non-vascular causes of death or of site-specific cancer, but do produce small increases in the incidence of myopathy, diabetes, and, probably, haemorrhagic stroke. The CTT Collaboration has not previously sought data on other outcomes, and so a comprehensive meta-analysis of all adverse events recorded in each of the eligible trials has not been conducted. This protocol prospectively describes plans to extend the CTT meta-analysis dataset so as to provide a more complete understanding of the nature and magnitude of any other effects of statin therapy.
The Heart Protection Study 2–Treatment of HDL to Reduce the Incidence of Vascular Events (HPS2-THRIVE) trial of patients at high risk of vascular disease found that adding extended-release ...niacin-laropiprant to intensive statin-based LDL-lowering therapy had no benefit on cardiovascular outcomes. However, the trial also identified previously unrecognized serious adverse effects (including new-onset diabetes, bleeding, and infection). Our objective was to explore the safety profile of niacin-laropiprant and examine whether any patients were at lower (or higher) risk of its adverse effects.
HPS2-THRIVE was a randomized, double-blind trial of niacin-laropiprant (2000/40 mg/d) versus placebo among 25,673 patients at high risk of vascular disease. Information on all serious adverse events was collected during a median of 3.9 years of study treatment. Effects of niacin-laropiprant on new-onset diabetes, disturbances of diabetes control, bleeding, infection, and gastrointestinal upset were estimated by (1) time after randomization, (2) severity, (3) baseline characteristics, (4) baseline risk of the adverse event of interest, and (5) risk of major vascular event.
The hazard ratio (HR) for new-onset diabetes with niacin/laropiprant was 1.32 (95% CI, 1.16–1.51; P < .001), which corresponded to an absolute excess of 4 people (95% CI, 2–6) developing diabetes per 1000 person-years in the study population as a whole. Among the 8299 participants with diabetes at baseline, the HR for serious disturbances in diabetes control was 1.56 (95% CI, 1.35–1.80), corresponding to an absolute excess of 12 (95% CI, 8–16) per 1000 person-years. The HR was 1.38 (95% CI, 1.17–1.63; P < .001) for serious bleeding, corresponding to an absolute excess of 2 (95% CI, 1–3) per 1000 person-years and 1.22 (95% CI, 1.11–1.34; P < .001) for serious infection, corresponding to an absolute excess of 4 (95% CI, 2–6) per 1000 person-years. The excess risks of these serious adverse events were larger in the first year after starting niacin-laropiprant therapy than in later years (except for the excess of infection, which did not appear to attenuate with time), and the risks of nonfatal and fatal events were similarly increased. The absolute excesses of each of these adverse effects were similar regardless of the baseline risk of the outcome.
Practitioners or patients considering the use of niacin (in addition to, or instead of, a statin) despite the lack of evidence of cardiovascular benefits (at least when added to effective statin therapy) should take account of the significant risks of these serious adverse effects when making such decisions. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00461630.
Reducing LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) with statin-based therapy reduces the risk of major atherosclerotic events among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), with no evidence of an excess risk of ...cancer or death from any non-vascular cause. However, non-randomized data have suggested that statin therapy may have effects (both adverse and beneficial) on particular non-vascular conditions that do not cause death.
The Study of Heart and Renal Protection (SHARP) randomized patients with CKD to simvastatin 20 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg (simvastatin/ezetimibe) daily versus matching placebo. Participants were followed up at least 6 monthly and all post-randomization serious adverse events (SAEs) were recorded. This supplementary analysis reports the effects of treatment on non-vascular SAEs, overall, by system of disease, by baseline characteristics, and by duration of follow-up.
During a median of 4.9 years follow-up, similar numbers of participants in the two groups experienced at least one non-vascular SAE (3551 76.4% simvastatin/ezetimibe vs 3537 76.6% placebo; risk ratio RR 0.99, 95% confidence interval CI 0.95-1.04). There was no good evidence of any significant effect of simvastatin/ezetimibe on SAEs attributed to any particular nonvascular disease system (of 43 comparisons, only 3 yielded an uncorrected p value < 0.05, of which the smallest was p = 0.02). The relative risk of any nonvascular SAE did not vary significantly among particular prognostic subgroups or by duration of follow-up.
In the SHARP trial, allocation to simvastatin/ezetimibe combination therapy was not associated with any significant non-vascular hazard.
SHARP was retrospectively registered after the first participant was enrolled in 2003 at ISRCTN (ISRCTN54137607 on 31 January 2005: http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN54137607) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00125593 on 29 July 2005: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00125593).
PDF
