Basil S. Lewis

Dabigatran versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND Warfarin reduces the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation but increases the risk of hemorrhage and is difficult to use. Dabigatran is a new oral direct thrombin inhibitor. METHODS In this noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned 18,113 patients who had atrial fibrillation and a risk of stroke to receive, in a blinded fashion, fixed doses of dabigatran--110 mg or 150 mg twice daily--or, in an unblinded fashion, adjusted-dose warfarin. The median duration of the follow-up period was 2.0 years. The primary outcome was stroke or systemic embolism. RESULTS Rates of the primary outcome were 1.69% per year in the warfarin group, as compared with 1.53% per year in the group that received 110 mg of dabigatran (relative risk with dabigatran, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.11; P<0.001 for noninferiority) and 1.11% per year in the group that received 150 mg of dabigatran (relative risk, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.82; P<0.001 for superiority). The rate of major bleeding was 3.36% per year in the warfarin group, as compared with 2.71% per year in the group receiving 110 mg of dabigatran (P=0.003) and 3.11% per year in the group receiving 150 mg of dabigatran (P=0.31). The rate of hemorrhagic stroke was 0.38% per year in the warfarin group, as compared with 0.12% per year with 110 mg of dabigatran (P<0.001) and 0.10% per year with 150 mg of dabigatran (P<0.001). The mortality rate was 4.13% per year in the warfarin group, as compared with 3.75% per year with 110 mg of dabigatran (P=0.13) and 3.64% per year with 150 mg of dabigatran (P=0.051). CONCLUSIONS In patients with atrial fibrillation, dabigatran given at a dose of 110 mg was associated with rates of stroke and systemic embolism that were similar to those associated with warfarin, as well as lower rates of major hemorrhage. Dabigatran administered at a dose of 150 mg, as compared with warfarin, was associated with lower rates of stroke and systemic embolism but similar rates of major hemorrhage. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00262600.)

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.).

Effects of pretreatment with clopidogrel and aspirin followed by long-term therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the PCI-CURE study

BACKGROUND Despite the use of aspirin, there is still a risk of ischaemic events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We aimed to find out whether, in addition to aspirin, pretreatment with clopidogrel followed by long-term therapy after PCI is superior to a strategy of no pretreatment and short-term therapy for only 4 weeks after PCI. METHODS 2658 patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome undergoing PCI in the CURE study had been randomly assigned double-blind treatment with clopidogrel (n=1313) or placebo (n=1345). Patients were pretreated with aspirin and study drug for a median of 6 days before PCI during the initial hospital admission, and for a median of 10 days overall. After PCI, most patients (>80%) in both groups received open-label thienopyridine for about 4 weeks, after which study drug was restarted for a mean of 8 months. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or urgent target-vessel revascularisation within 30 days of PCI. The main analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS There were no drop-outs. 59 (4.5%) patients in the clopidogrel group had the primary endpoint, compared with 86 (6.4%) in the placebo group (relative risk 0.70 [95% CI 0.50-0.97], p=0.03). Long-term administration of clopidogrel after PCI was associated with a lower rate of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or any revascularisation (p=0.03), and of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction (p=0.047). Overall (including events before and after PCI) there was a 31% reduction cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction (p=0.002). There was less use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor in the clopidogrel group (p=0.001). At follow-up, there was no significant difference in major bleeding between the groups (p=0.64). INTERPRETATION In patients with acute coronary syndrome receiving aspirin, a strategy of clopidogrel pretreatment followed by long-term therapy is beneficial in reducing major cardiovascular events, compared with placebo.

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.).

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomised trials

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.

Ezetimibe Added to Statin Therapy after Acute Coronary Syndromes

BACKGROUND Statin therapy reduces low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels and the risk of cardiovascular events, but whether the addition of ezetimibe, a nonstatin drug that reduces intestinal cholesterol absorption, can reduce the rate of cardiovascular events further is not known. METHODS We conducted a double-blind, randomized trial involving 18,144 patients who had been hospitalized for an acute coronary syndrome within the preceding 10 days and had LDL cholesterol levels of 50 to 100 mg per deciliter (1.3 to 2.6 mmol per liter) if they were receiving lipid-lowering therapy or 50 to 125 mg per deciliter (1.3 to 3.2 mmol per liter) if they were not receiving lipid-lowering therapy. The combination of simvastatin (40 mg) and ezetimibe (10 mg) (simvastatin-ezetimibe) was compared with simvastatin (40 mg) and placebo (simvastatin monotherapy). The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina requiring rehospitalization, coronary revascularization (≥30 days after randomization), or nonfatal stroke. The median follow-up was 6 years. RESULTS The median time-weighted average LDL cholesterol level during the study was 53.7 mg per deciliter (1.4 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group, as compared with 69.5 mg per deciliter (1.8 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-monotherapy group (P<0.001). The Kaplan-Meier event rate for the primary end point at 7 years was 32.7% in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group, as compared with 34.7% in the simvastatin-monotherapy group (absolute risk difference, 2.0 percentage points; hazard ratio, 0.936; 95% confidence interval, 0.89 to 0.99; P=0.016). Rates of prespecified muscle, gallbladder, and hepatic adverse effects and cancer were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS When added to statin therapy, ezetimibe resulted in incremental lowering of LDL cholesterol levels and improved cardiovascular outcomes. Moreover, lowering LDL cholesterol to levels below previous targets provided additional benefit. (Funded by Merck; IMPROVE-IT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00202878.).

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.

Effects on coronary artery disease of lipid-lowering diet, or diet plus cholestyramine, in the St Thomas' Atherosclerosis Regression Study (STARS)

To assess the effect of dietary reduction of plasma cholesterol concentrations on coronary atherosclerosis, we set up a randomised, controlled, end-point-blinded trial based on quantitative image analysis of coronary angiograms in patients with angina or past myocardial infarction. Another intervention group received diet and cholestyramine, to determine the effect of a greater reduction in circulating cholesterol concentrations. 90 men with coronary heart disease (CHD), who had a mean (SD) plasma cholesterol of 7.23 (0.77) mmol/l were randomised to receive usual care (U, controls), dietary intervention (D), or diet plus cholestyramine (DC), with angiography at baseline and at 39 (SD 3.5) months. Mean plasma cholesterol during the trial period was 6.93 (U), 6.17 (D), and 5.56 (DC) mmol/l. The proportion of patients who showed overall progression of coronary narrowing was significantly reduced by both interventions (U 46%, D 15%, DC 12%), whereas the proportion who showed an increase in luminal diameter rose significantly (U 4%, D 38%, DC 33%). The mean absolute width of the coronary segments (MAWS) studied decreased by 0.201 mm in controls, increased by 0.003 mm in group D, and increased by 0.103 mm in group DC (p less than 0.05), with improvement also seen in the minimum width of segments, percentage diameter stenosis, and edge-irregularity index in intervention groups. The change in MAWS was independently and significantly correlated with LDL cholesterol concentration and LDL/HDL cholesterol ratio during the trial period. Both interventions significantly reduced the frequency of total cardiovascular events. Dietary change alone retarded overall progression and increased overall regression of coronary artery disease, and diet plus cholestyramine was additionally associated with a net increase in coronary lumen diameter. These findings support the use of a lipid-lowering diet, and if necessary of appropriate drug treatment, in men with CHD who have even mildly raised serum cholesterol concentrations.

Effects of Aspirin Dose When Used Alone or in Combination With Clopidogrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Observations From the Clopidogrel in Unstable angina to prevent Recurrent Events (CURE) Study

Background—We studied the benefits and risks of adding clopidogrel to different doses of aspirin in the treatment of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods and Results—In the Clopidogrel in Unstable angina to prevent Recurrent Events (CURE) trial, 12 562 patients with ACS using aspirin, 75 to 325 mg daily, were randomized to clopidogrel or placebo for up to 1 year. In this analysis, patients were divided into the following 3 aspirin dose groups: ≤100 mg, 101 through 199 mg, and ≥200 mg. The combined incidence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was reduced by clopidogrel regardless of aspirin dose, as follows: ≤100 mg, 10.5% versus 8.6% (relative risk [RR], 0.81 [95% CI, 0.68 to 0.97]); 101 to 199 mg, 9.8% versus 9.5% (RR, 0.97 [95% CI 0.77 to 1.22]); and ≥200 mg, 13.6% versus 9.8% (RR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.59 to 0.85]). The incidence of major bleeding increased with increasing aspirin dose both in the placebo group (1.9%, 2.8%, and 3.7%, respectively; P =0.0001) and the clopidogrel group (3.0%, 3.4%, and 4.9%, respectively; P =0.0009); thus, the excess risk with clopidogrel was 1.1%, 1.2%, and 1.2%, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio for major bleeding for the highest versus the lowest dose of aspirin was 1.9 (95% CI 1.29 to 2.72) in the placebo group, 1.6 (95% CI 1.19 to 2.23) in the clopidogrel group, and 1.7 (95% CI 1.36 to 2.20) in the combined group. Conclusions—In patients with ACS, adding clopidogrel to aspirin is beneficial regardless of aspirin dose. Bleeding risks increase with increasing aspirin dose, with or without clopidogrel, without any increase in efficacy. Our findings suggest that the optimal daily dose of aspirin may be between 75 and 100 mg, with or without clopidogrel.

Thrombin-Receptor Antagonist Vorapaxar in Acute Coronary Syndromes

BACKGROUND Vorapaxar is a new oral protease-activated-receptor 1 (PAR-1) antagonist that inhibits thrombin-induced platelet activation. METHODS In this multinational, double-blind, randomized trial, we compared vorapaxar with placebo in 12,944 patients who had acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, recurrent ischemia with rehospitalization, or urgent coronary revascularization. RESULTS Follow-up in the trial was terminated early after a safety review. After a median follow-up of 502 days (interquartile range, 349 to 667), the primary end point occurred in 1031 of 6473 patients receiving vorapaxar versus 1102 of 6471 patients receiving placebo (Kaplan-Meier 2-year rate, 18.5% vs. 19.9%; hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.01; P=0.07). A composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 822 patients in the vorapaxar group versus 910 in the placebo group (14.7% and 16.4%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.98; P=0.02). Rates of moderate and severe bleeding were 7.2% in the vorapaxar group and 5.2% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.58; P<0.001). Intracranial hemorrhage rates were 1.1% and 0.2%, respectively (hazard ratio, 3.39; 95% CI, 1.78 to 6.45; P<0.001). Rates of nonhemorrhagic adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS In patients with acute coronary syndromes, the addition of vorapaxar to standard therapy did not significantly reduce the primary composite end point but significantly increased the risk of major bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage. (Funded by Merck; TRACER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00527943.).