Alvaro Avezum

Effect of potentially modifiable risk factors associated with myocardial infarction in 52 countries (the INTERHEART study): case-control study

BACKGROUND Although more than 80% of the global burden of cardiovascular disease occurs in low-income and middle-income countries, knowledge of the importance of risk factors is largely derived from developed countries. Therefore, the effect of such factors on risk of coronary heart disease in most regions of the world is unknown. METHODS We established a standardised case-control study of acute myocardial infarction in 52 countries, representing every inhabited continent. 15152 cases and 14820 controls were enrolled. The relation of smoking, history of hypertension or diabetes, waist/hip ratio, dietary patterns, physical activity, consumption of alcohol, blood apolipoproteins (Apo), and psychosocial factors to myocardial infarction are reported here. Odds ratios and their 99% CIs for the association of risk factors to myocardial infarction and their population attributable risks (PAR) were calculated. FINDINGS Smoking (odds ratio 2.87 for current vs never, PAR 35.7% for current and former vs never), raised ApoB/ApoA1 ratio (3.25 for top vs lowest quintile, PAR 49.2% for top four quintiles vs lowest quintile), history of hypertension (1.91, PAR 17.9%), diabetes (2.37, PAR 9.9%), abdominal obesity (1.12 for top vs lowest tertile and 1.62 for middle vs lowest tertile, PAR 20.1% for top two tertiles vs lowest tertile), psychosocial factors (2.67, PAR 32.5%), daily consumption of fruits and vegetables (0.70, PAR 13.7% for lack of daily consumption), regular alcohol consumption (0.91, PAR 6.7%), and regular physical activity (0.86, PAR 12.2%), were all significantly related to acute myocardial infarction (p<0.0001 for all risk factors and p=0.03 for alcohol). These associations were noted in men and women, old and young, and in all regions of the world. Collectively, these nine risk factors accounted for 90% of the PAR in men and 94% in women. INTERPRETATION Abnormal lipids, smoking, hypertension, diabetes, abdominal obesity, psychosocial factors, consumption of fruits, vegetables, and alcohol, and regular physical activity account for most of the risk of myocardial infarction worldwide in both sexes and at all ages in all regions. This finding suggests that approaches to prevention can be based on similar principles worldwide and have the potential to prevent most premature cases of myocardial infarction.

Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND Vitamin K antagonists are highly effective in preventing stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation but have several limitations. Apixaban is a novel oral direct factor Xa inhibitor that has been shown to reduce the risk of stroke in a similar population in comparison with aspirin. METHODS In this randomized, double-blind trial, we compared apixaban (at a dose of 5 mg twice daily) with warfarin (target international normalized ratio, 2.0 to 3.0) in 18,201 patients with atrial fibrillation and at least one additional risk factor for stroke. The primary outcome was ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism. The trial was designed to test for noninferiority, with key secondary objectives of testing for superiority with respect to the primary outcome and to the rates of major bleeding and death from any cause. RESULTS The median duration of follow-up was 1.8 years. The rate of the primary outcome was 1.27% per year in the apixaban group, as compared with 1.60% per year in the warfarin group (hazard ratio with apixaban, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.95; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.01 for superiority). The rate of major bleeding was 2.13% per year in the apixaban group, as compared with 3.09% per year in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.80; P<0.001), and the rates of death from any cause were 3.52% and 3.94%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.99; P=0.047). The rate of hemorrhagic stroke was 0.24% per year in the apixaban group, as compared with 0.47% per year in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.75; P<0.001), and the rate of ischemic or uncertain type of stroke was 0.97% per year in the apixaban group and 1.05% per year in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.13; P=0.42). CONCLUSIONS In patients with atrial fibrillation, apixaban was superior to warfarin in preventing stroke or systemic embolism, caused less bleeding, and resulted in lower mortality. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer; ARISTOTLE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00412984.).

Apixaban in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND Vitamin K antagonists have been shown to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. However, many patients are not suitable candidates for or are unwilling to receive vitamin K antagonist therapy, and these patients have a high risk of stroke. Apixaban, a novel factor Xa inhibitor, may be an alternative treatment for such patients. METHODS In a double-blind study, we randomly assigned 5599 patients with atrial fibrillation who were at increased risk for stroke and for whom vitamin K antagonist therapy was unsuitable to receive apixaban (at a dose of 5 mg twice daily) or aspirin (81 to 324 mg per day), to determine whether apixaban was superior. The mean follow up period was 1.1 years. The primary outcome was the occurrence of stroke or systemic embolism. RESULTS Before enrollment, 40% of the patients had used a vitamin K antagonist. The data and safety monitoring board recommended early termination of the study because of a clear benefit in favor of apixaban. There were 51 primary outcome events (1.6% per year) among patients assigned to apixaban and 113 (3.7% per year) among those assigned to aspirin (hazard ratio with apixaban, 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.62; P<0.001). The rates of death were 3.5% per year in the apixaban group and 4.4% per year in the aspirin group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.02; P=0.07). There were 44 cases of major bleeding (1.4% per year) in the apixaban group and 39 (1.2% per year) in the aspirin group (hazard ratio with apixaban, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.75; P=0.57); there were 11 cases of intracranial bleeding with apixaban and 13 with aspirin. The risk of a first hospitalization for cardiovascular causes was reduced with apixaban as compared with aspirin (12.6% per year vs. 15.9% per year, P<0.001). The treatment effects were consistent among important subgroups. CONCLUSIONS In patients with atrial fibrillation for whom vitamin K antagonist therapy was unsuitable, apixaban reduced the risk of stroke or systemic embolism without significantly increasing the risk of major bleeding or intracranial hemorrhage. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00496769.).

Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial

BACKGROUND Small trials have suggested that radial access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces vascular complications and bleeding compared with femoral access. We aimed to assess whether radial access was superior to femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) who were undergoing coronary angiography with possible intervention. METHODS The RadIal Vs femorAL access for coronary intervention (RIVAL) trial was a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Patients with ACS were randomly assigned (1:1) by a 24 h computerised central automated voice response system to radial or femoral artery access. The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or non-coronary artery bypass graft (non-CABG)-related major bleeding at 30 days. Key secondary outcomes were death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; and non-CABG-related major bleeding at 30 days. A masked central committee adjudicated the primary outcome, components of the primary outcome, and stent thrombosis. All other outcomes were as reported by the investigators. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01014273. FINDINGS Between June 6, 2006, and Nov 3, 2010, 7021 patients were enrolled from 158 hospitals in 32 countries. 3507 patients were randomly assigned to radial access and 3514 to femoral access. The primary outcome occurred in 128 (3·7%) of 3507 patients in the radial access group compared with 139 (4·0%) of 3514 in the femoral access group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·92, 95% CI 0·72-1·17; p=0·50). Of the six prespecified subgroups, there was a significant interaction for the primary outcome with benefit for radial access in highest tertile volume radial centres (HR 0·49, 95% CI 0·28-0·87; p=0·015) and in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (0·60, 0·38-0·94; p=0·026). The rate of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 30 days was 112 (3·2%) of 3507 patients in the radial group compared with 114 (3·2%) of 3514 in the femoral group (HR 0·98, 95% CI 0·76-1·28; p=0·90). The rate of non-CABG-related major bleeding at 30 days was 24 (0·7%) of 3507 patients in the radial group compared with 33 (0·9%) of 3514 patients in the femoral group (HR 0·73, 95% CI 0·43-1·23; p=0·23). At 30 days, 42 of 3507 patients in the radial group had large haematoma compared with 106 of 3514 in the femoral group (HR 0·40, 95% CI 0·28-0·57; p<0·0001). Pseudoaneurysm needing closure occurred in seven of 3507 patients in the radial group compared with 23 of 3514 in the femoral group (HR 0·30, 95% CI 0·13-0·71; p=0·006). INTERPRETATION Radial and femoral approaches are both safe and effective for PCI. However, the lower rate of local vascular complications may be a reason to use the radial approach. FUNDING Sanofi-Aventis, Population Health Research Institute, and Canadian Network for Trials Internationally (CANNeCTIN), an initiative of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Comparison of Candesartan, Enalapril, and Their Combination in Congestive Heart Failure Randomized Evaluation of Strategies for Left Ventricular Dysfunction (RESOLVD) Pilot Study: The RESOLVD Pilot Study Investigators

BACKGROUND We investigated the effects of candesartan (an angiotensin II antagonist) alone, enalapril alone, and their combination on exercise tolerance, ventricular function, quality of life (QOL), neurohormone levels, and tolerability in congestive heart failure (CHF). METHODS AND RESULTS Seven hundred sixty-eight patients in New York Heart Association functional class (NYHA-FC) II to IV with ejection fraction (EF) <0.40 and a 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) <500 m received either candesartan (4, 8, or 16 mg), candesartan (4 or 8 mg) plus 20 mg of enalapril, or 20 mg of enalapril for 43 weeks. There were no differences among groups with regard to 6MWD, NYHA-FC, or QOL. EF increased (P=NS) more with candesartan-plus-enalapril therapy (0.025+/-0.004) than with candesartan alone (0.015+/-0.004) or enalapril alone(0.015+/-0.005). End-diastolic (EDV) and end-systolic (ESV) volumes increased less with combination therapy (EDV 8+/-4 mL; ESV 1+/-4 mL; P<0.01) than with candesartan alone (EDV 27+/-4 mL; ESV 18+/-3 mL) or enalapril alone (EDV 23+/-7 mL; ESV 14+/-6 mL). Blood pressure decreased with combination therapy (6+/-1/4+/-1 mm Hg) compared with candesartan or enalapril alone (P<0.05). Aldosterone decreased (P<0.05) with combination therapy (23.2+/-5.3 pg/mL) at 17 but not 43 weeks compared with candesartan (0.7+/-7.8 pg/mL) or enalapril (-0.8+/-11. 3 pg/mL). Brain natriuretic peptide decreased with combination therapy (5.8+/-2.7 pmol/L; P<0.01) compared with candesartan (4. 4+/-3.8 pmol/L) and enalapril alone (4.0+/-5.0 pmol/L). CONCLUSIONS Candesartan alone was as effective, safe, and tolerable as enalapril. The combination of candesartan and enalapril was more beneficial for preventing left ventricular remodeling than either candesartan or enalapril alone.

Prediction of risk of death and myocardial infarction in the six months after presentation with acute coronary syndrome: prospective multinational observational study (GRACE).

Objective To develop a clinical risk prediction tool for estimating the cumulative six month risk of death and death or myocardial infarction to facilitate triage and management of patients with acute coronary syndrome. Design Prospective multinational observational study in which we used multivariable regression to develop a final predictive model, with prospective and external validation. Setting Ninety four hospitals in 14 countries in Europe, North and South America, Australia, and New Zealand. Population 43 810 patients (21 688 in derivation set; 22 122 in validation set) presenting with acute coronary syndrome with or without ST segment elevation enrolled in the global registry of acute coronary events (GRACE) study between April 1999 and September 2005. Main outcome measures Death and myocardial infarction. Results 1989 patients died in hospital, 1466 died between discharge and six month follow-up, and 2793 sustained a new non-fatal myocardial infarction. Nine factors independently predicted death and the combined end point of death or myocardial infarction in the period from admission to six months after discharge: age, development (or history) of heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, systolic blood pressure, Killip class, initial serum creatinine concentration, elevated initial cardiac markers, cardiac arrest on admission, and ST segment deviation. The simplified model was robust, with prospectively validated C-statistics of 0.81 for predicting death and 0.73 for death or myocardial infarction from admission to six months after discharge. The external applicability of the model was validated in the dataset from GUSTO IIb (global use of strategies to open occluded coronary arteries). Conclusions This risk prediction tool uses readily identifiable variables to provide robust prediction of the cumulative six month risk of death or myocardial infarction. It is a rapid and widely applicable method for assessing cardiovascular risk to complement clinical assessment and can guide patient triage and management across the spectrum of patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Double-dose versus standard-dose clopidogrel and high-dose versus low-dose aspirin in individuals undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndromes (CURRENT-OASIS 7): a randomised factorial trial

BACKGROUND Clopidogrel and aspirin are the most commonly used antiplatelet therapies for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We assessed the effect of various clopidogrel and aspirin regimens in prevention of major cardiovascular events and stent thrombosis in patients undergoing PCI. METHODS The CURRENT-OASIS 7 trial was undertaken in 597 centres in 39 countries. 25,086 individuals with acute coronary syndromes and intended early PCI were randomly assigned to double-dose (600 mg on day 1, 150 mg on days 2-7, then 75 mg daily) versus standard-dose (300 mg on day 1 then 75 mg daily) clopidogrel, and high-dose (300-325 mg daily) versus low-dose (75-100 mg daily) aspirin. Randomisation was done with a 24 h computerised central automated voice response system. The clopidogrel dose comparison was double-blind and the aspirin dose comparison was open label with blinded assessment of outcomes. This prespecified analysis is of the 17,263 individuals who underwent PCI. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 30 days. Analyses were by intention to treat, adjusted for propensity to undergo PCI. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00335452. FINDINGS 8560 patients were assigned to double-dose and 8703 to standard-dose clopidogrel (8558 and 8702 completed 30-day follow-up, respectively), and 8624 to high-dose and 8639 to low-dose aspirin (8622 and 8638 completed 30-day follow-up, respectively). Compared with the standard dose, double-dose clopidogrel reduced the rate of the primary outcome (330 events [3·9%] vs 392 events [4·5%]; adjusted hazard ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·74-0·99, p=0·039) and definite stent thrombosis (58 [0·7%] vs 111 [1·3%]; 0·54 [0·39-0·74], p=0·0001). High-dose and low-dose aspirin did not differ for the primary outcome (356 [4·1%] vs 366 [4·2%]; 0·98, 0·84-1·13, p=0·76). Major bleeding was more common with double-dose than with standard-dose clopidogrel (139 [1·6%] vs 99 [1·1%]; 1·41, 1·09-1·83, p=0·009) and did not differ between high-dose and low-dose aspirin (128 [1·5%] vs 110 [1·3%]; 1·18, 0·92-1·53, p=0·20). INTERPRETATION In patients undergoing PCI for acute coronary syndromes, a 7-day double-dose clopidogrel regimen was associated with a reduction in cardiovascular events and stent thrombosis compared with the standard dose. Efficacy and safety did not differ between high-dose and low-dose aspirin. A double-dose clopidogrel regimen can be considered for all patients with acute coronary syndromes treated with an early invasive strategy and intended early PCI. FUNDING Sanofi-Aventis and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Early versus Delayed Invasive Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndromes

BACKGROUND Earlier trials have shown that a routine invasive strategy improves outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. However, the optimal timing of such intervention remains uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 3031 patients with acute coronary syndromes to undergo either routine early intervention (coronary angiography < or = 24 hours after randomization) or delayed intervention (coronary angiography > or = 36 hours after randomization). The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 6 months. A prespecified secondary outcome was death, myocardial infarction, or refractory ischemia at 6 months. RESULTS Coronary angiography was performed in 97.6% of patients in the early-intervention group (median time, 14 hours) and in 95.7% of patients in the delayed-intervention group (median time, 50 hours). At 6 months, the primary outcome occurred in 9.6% of patients in the early-intervention group, as compared with 11.3% in the delayed-intervention group (hazard ratio in the early-intervention group, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 1.06; P=0.15). There was a relative reduction of 28% in the secondary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or refractory ischemia in the early-intervention group (9.5%), as compared with the delayed-intervention group (12.9%) (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.89; P=0.003). Prespecified analyses showed that early intervention improved the primary outcome in the third of patients who were at highest risk (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.89) but not in the two thirds at low-to-intermediate risk (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.56; P=0.01 for heterogeneity). CONCLUSIONS Early intervention did not differ greatly from delayed intervention in preventing the primary outcome, but it did reduce the rate of the composite secondary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or refractory ischemia and was superior to delayed intervention in high-risk patients. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00552513.)

Use of secondary prevention drugs for cardiovascular disease in the community in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries (the PURE Study): a prospective epidemiological survey

BACKGROUND Although most cardiovascular disease occurs in low-income and middle-income countries, little is known about the use of effective secondary prevention medications in these communities. We aimed to assess use of proven effective secondary preventive drugs (antiplatelet drugs, β blockers, angiotensin-converting-enzyme [ACE] inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers [ARBs], and statins) in individuals with a history of coronary heart disease or stroke. METHODS In the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiological (PURE) study, we recruited individuals aged 35-70 years from rural and urban communities in countries at various stages of economic development. We assessed rates of previous cardiovascular disease (coronary heart disease or stroke) and use of proven effective secondary preventive drugs and blood-pressure-lowering drugs with standardised questionnaires, which were completed by telephone interviews, household visits, or on patients presentation to clinics. We report estimates of drug use at national, community, and individual levels. FINDINGS We enrolled 153,996 adults from 628 urban and rural communities in countries with incomes classified as high (three countries), upper-middle (seven), lower-middle (three), or low (four) between January, 2003, and December, 2009. 5650 participants had a self-reported coronary heart disease event (median 5·0 years previously [IQR 2·0-10·0]) and 2292 had stroke (4·0 years previously [2·0-8·0]). Overall, few individuals with cardiovascular disease took antiplatelet drugs (25·3%), β blockers (17·4%), ACE inhibitors or ARBs (19·5%), or statins (14·6%). Use was highest in high-income countries (antiplatelet drugs 62·0%, β blockers 40·0%, ACE inhibitors or ARBs 49·8%, and statins 66·5%), lowest in low-income countries (8·8%, 9·7%, 5·2%, and 3·3%, respectively), and decreased in line with reduction of country economic status (p(trend)<0·0001 for every drug type). Fewest patients received no drugs in high-income countries (11·2%), compared with 45·1% in upper middle-income countries, 69·3% in lower middle-income countries, and 80·2% in low-income countries. Drug use was higher in urban than rural areas (antiplatelet drugs 28·7% urban vs 21·3% rural, β blockers 23·5%vs 15·6%, ACE inhibitors or ARBs 22·8%vs 15·5%, and statins 19·9%vs 11·6%; all p<0·0001), with greatest variation in poorest countries (p(interaction)<0·0001 for urban vs rural differences by country economic status). Country-level factors (eg, economic status) affected rates of drug use more than did individual-level factors (eg, age, sex, education, smoking status, body-mass index, and hypertension and diabetes statuses). INTERPRETATION Because use of secondary prevention medications is low worldwide-especially in low-income countries and rural areas-systematic approaches are needed to improve the long-term use of basic, inexpensive, and effective drugs. FUNDING Full funding sources listed at end of paper (see Acknowledgments).

Prevalence, Awareness, Treatment, and Control of Hypertension in Rural and Urban Communities in High-, Middle-, and Low-Income Countries

IMPORTANCE Hypertension is the most important preventable cause of morbidity and mortality globally, yet there are relatively few data collected using standardized methods. OBJECTIVE To examine hypertension prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control in participants at baseline in the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A cross-sectional study of 153,996 adults (complete data for this analysis on 142,042) aged 35 to 70 years, recruited between January 2003 and December 2009. Participants were from 628 communities in 3 high-income countries (HIC), 10 upper-middle-income and low-middle-income countries (UMIC and LMIC), and 4 low-income countries (LIC). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Hypertension was defined as individuals with self-reported treated hypertension or with an average of 2 blood pressure measurements of at least 140/90 mm Hg using an automated digital device. Awareness was based on self-reports, treatment was based on the regular use of blood pressure-lowering medications, and control was defined as individuals with blood pressure lower than 140/90 mm Hg. RESULTS Among the 142,042 participants, 57,840 (40.8%; 95% CI, 40.5%-41.0%) had hypertension and 26,877 (46.5%; 95% CI, 46.1%-46.9%) were aware of the diagnosis. Of those who were aware of the diagnosis, the majority (23,510 [87.5%; 95% CI, 87.1%-87.9%] of those who were aware) were receiving pharmacological treatments, but only a minority of those receiving treatment were controlled (7634 [32.5%; 95% CI, 31.9%-33.1%]). Overall, 30.8%, 95% CI, 30.2%-31.4% of treated patients were taking 2 or more types of blood pressure-lowering medications. The percentages aware (49.0% [95% CI, 47.8%-50.3%] in HICs, 52.5% [95% CI, 51.8%-53.2%] in UMICs, 43.6% [95% CI, 42.9%-44.2%] in LMICs, and 40.8% [95% CI, 39.9%-41.8%] in LICs) and treated (46.7% [95% CI, 45.5%-47.9%] in HICs, 48.3%, [95% CI, 47.6%-49.1%] in UMICs, 36.9%, [95% CI, 36.3%-37.6%] in LMICs, and 31.7% [95% CI, 30.8%-32.6%] in LICs) were lower in LICs compared with all other countries for awareness (P <.001) and treatment (P <.001). Awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension were higher in urban communities compared with rural ones in LICs (urban vs rural, P <.001) and LMICs (urban vs rural, P <.001), but similar for other countries. Low education was associated with lower rates of awareness, treatment, and control in LICs, but not in other countries. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among a multinational study population, 46.5% of participants with hypertension were aware of the diagnosis, with blood pressure control among 32.5% of those being treated. These findings suggest substantial room for improvement in hypertension diagnosis and treatment.