José Carlos Nicolau

Long-Term Use of Ticagrelor in Patients with Prior Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND The potential benefit of dual antiplatelet therapy beyond 1 year after a myocardial infarction has not been established. We investigated the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor, a P2Y12 receptor antagonist with established efficacy after an acute coronary syndrome, in this context. METHODS We randomly assigned, in a double-blind 1:1:1 fashion, 21,162 patients who had had a myocardial infarction 1 to 3 years earlier to ticagrelor at a dose of 90 mg twice daily, ticagrelor at a dose of 60 mg twice daily, or placebo. All the patients were to receive low-dose aspirin and were followed for a median of 33 months. The primary efficacy end point was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The primary safety end point was Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding. RESULTS The two ticagrelor doses each reduced, as compared with placebo, the rate of the primary efficacy end point, with Kaplan-Meier rates at 3 years of 7.85% in the group that received 90 mg of ticagrelor twice daily, 7.77% in the group that received 60 mg of ticagrelor twice daily, and 9.04% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for 90 mg of ticagrelor vs. placebo, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.96; P=0.008; hazard ratio for 60 mg of ticagrelor vs. placebo, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.95; P=0.004). Rates of TIMI major bleeding were higher with ticagrelor (2.60% with 90 mg and 2.30% with 60 mg) than with placebo (1.06%) (P<0.001 for each dose vs. placebo); the rates of intracranial hemorrhage or fatal bleeding in the three groups were 0.63%, 0.71%, and 0.60%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS In patients with a myocardial infarction more than 1 year previously, treatment with ticagrelor significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke and increased the risk of major bleeding. (Funded by AstraZeneca; PEGASUS-TIMI 54 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01225562.).

Antiinflammatory Therapy with Canakinumab for Atherosclerotic Disease

BACKGROUND Experimental and clinical data suggest that reducing inflammation without affecting lipid levels may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. Yet, the inflammatory hypothesis of atherothrombosis has remained unproved. METHODS We conducted a randomized, double‐blind trial of canakinumab, a therapeutic monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin‐1β, involving 10,061 patients with previous myocardial infarction and a high‐sensitivity C‐reactive protein level of 2 mg or more per liter. The trial compared three doses of canakinumab (50 mg, 150 mg, and 300 mg, administered subcutaneously every 3 months) with placebo. The primary efficacy end point was nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. RESULTS At 48 months, the median reduction from baseline in the high‐sensitivity C‐reactive protein level was 26 percentage points greater in the group that received the 50‐mg dose of canakinumab, 37 percentage points greater in the 150‐mg group, and 41 percentage points greater in the 300‐mg group than in the placebo group. Canakinumab did not reduce lipid levels from baseline. At a median follow‐up of 3.7 years, the incidence rate for the primary end point was 4.50 events per 100 person‐years in the placebo group, 4.11 events per 100 person‐years in the 50‐mg group, 3.86 events per 100 person‐years in the 150‐mg group, and 3.90 events per 100 person‐years in the 300‐mg group. The hazard ratios as compared with placebo were as follows: in the 50‐mg group, 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.07; P=0.30); in the 150‐mg group, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.74 to 0.98; P=0.021); and in the 300‐mg group, 0.86 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.99; P=0.031). The 150‐mg dose, but not the other doses, met the prespecified multiplicity‐adjusted threshold for statistical significance for the primary end point and the secondary end point that additionally included hospitalization for unstable angina that led to urgent revascularization (hazard ratio vs. placebo, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.95; P=0.005). Canakinumab was associated with a higher incidence of fatal infection than was placebo. There was no significant difference in all‐cause mortality (hazard ratio for all canakinumab doses vs. placebo, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.06; P=0.31). CONCLUSIONS Antiinflammatory therapy targeting the interleukin‐1β innate immunity pathway with canakinumab at a dose of 150 mg every 3 months led to a significantly lower rate of recurrent cardiovascular events than placebo, independent of lipid‐level lowering. (Funded by Novartis; CANTOS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01327846.)

Prasugrel versus Clopidogrel for Acute Coronary Syndromes without Revascularization

BACKGROUND The effect of intensified platelet inhibition for patients with unstable angina or myocardial infarction without ST-segment elevation who do not undergo revascularization has not been delineated. METHODS In this double-blind, randomized trial, in a primary analysis involving 7243 patients under the age of 75 years receiving aspirin, we evaluated up to 30 months of treatment with prasugrel (10 mg daily) versus clopidogrel (75 mg daily). In a secondary analysis involving 2083 patients 75 years of age or older, we evaluated 5 mg of prasugrel versus 75 mg of clopidogrel. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 17 months, the primary end point of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke among patients under the age of 75 years occurred in 13.9% of the prasugrel group and 16.0% of the clopidogrel group (hazard ratio in the prasugrel group, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.05; P=0.21). Similar results were observed in the overall population. The prespecified analysis of multiple recurrent ischemic events (all components of the primary end point) suggested a lower risk for prasugrel among patients under the age of 75 years (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.00; P=0.04). Rates of severe and intracranial bleeding were similar in the two groups in all age groups. There was no significant between-group difference in the frequency of nonhemorrhagic serious adverse events, except for a higher frequency of heart failure in the clopidogrel group. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with unstable angina or myocardial infarction without ST-segment elevation, prasugrel did not significantly reduce the frequency of the primary end point, as compared with clopidogrel, and similar risks of bleeding were observed. (Funded by Eli Lilly and Daiichi Sankyo; TRILOGY ACS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00699998.).

Vorapaxar in the Secondary Prevention of Atherothrombotic Events

BACKGROUND Thrombin potently activates platelets through the protease-activated receptor PAR-1. Vorapaxar is a novel antiplatelet agent that selectively inhibits the cellular actions of thrombin through antagonism of PAR-1. METHODS We randomly assigned 26,449 patients who had a history of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or peripheral arterial disease to receive vorapaxar (2.5 mg daily) or matching placebo and followed them for a median of 30 months. The primary efficacy end point was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke. After 2 years, the data and safety monitoring board recommended discontinuation of the study treatment in patients with a history of stroke owing to the risk of intracranial hemorrhage. RESULTS At 3 years, the primary end point had occurred in 1028 patients (9.3%) in the vorapaxar group and in 1176 patients (10.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for the vorapaxar group, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 0.94; P<0.001). Cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or recurrent ischemia leading to revascularization occurred in 1259 patients (11.2%) in the vorapaxar group and 1417 patients (12.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.95; P=0.001). Moderate or severe bleeding occurred in 4.2% of patients who received vorapaxar and 2.5% of those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.43 to 1.93; P<0.001). There was an increase in the rate of intracranial hemorrhage in the vorapaxar group (1.0%, vs. 0.5% in the placebo group; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Inhibition of PAR-1 with vorapaxar reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or ischemic events in patients with stable atherosclerosis who were receiving standard therapy. However, it increased the risk of moderate or severe bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage. (Funded by Merck; TRA 2P-TIMI 50 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00526474.).

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.).

Myocardial Viability and Survival in Ischemic Left Ventricular Dysfunction

BACKGROUND The assessment of myocardial viability has been used to identify patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction in whom coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) will provide a survival benefit. However, the efficacy of this approach is uncertain. METHODS In a substudy of patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction who were enrolled in a randomized trial of medical therapy with or without CABG, we used single-photon-emission computed tomography (SPECT), dobutamine echocardiography, or both to assess myocardial viability on the basis of prespecified thresholds. RESULTS Among the 1212 patients enrolled in the randomized trial, 601 underwent assessment of myocardial viability. Of these patients, we randomly assigned 298 to receive medical therapy plus CABG and 303 to receive medical therapy alone. A total of 178 of 487 patients with viable myocardium (37%) and 58 of 114 patients without viable myocardium (51%) died (hazard ratio for death among patients with viable myocardium, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48 to 0.86; P=0.003). However, after adjustment for other baseline variables, this association with mortality was not significant (P=0.21). There was no significant interaction between viability status and treatment assignment with respect to mortality (P=0.53). CONCLUSIONS The presence of viable myocardium was associated with a greater likelihood of survival in patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction, but this relationship was not significant after adjustment for other baseline variables. The assessment of myocardial viability did not identify patients with a differential survival benefit from CABG, as compared with medical therapy alone. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; STICH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00023595.).

Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Results From the PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes) Trial

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG), as a post-randomization strategy. BACKGROUND Ticagrelor is a novel, reversibly binding, oral, direct-acting P2Y(12)-receptor antagonist. In the PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes) trial, which randomized 18,624 patients with acute coronary syndromes, ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel significantly reduced the risk of the primary composite end point of cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77 to 0.92; p < 0.001). This report investigated the outcomes of patients treated with CABG during the trial. METHODS In total, 1,899 patients underwent CABG post-randomization. The protocol recommended ticagrelor/placebo to be withheld for 24 to 72 h and clopidogrel/placebo for 5 days preoperatively. In all, 1,261 patients underwent CABG and were receiving study drug treatment <7 days before surgery. The statistical analysis was based on events occurring from the CABG procedure until the end of the study, excluding 3 patients with CABG after study end. RESULTS In the 1,261 patient cohort, the relative reduction of primary composite end point at 12 months (10.6% [66 of 629] with ticagrelor versus 13.1% [79 of 629] with clopidogrel; HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.16; p = 0.29) was consistent with the results of the whole trial. Total mortality was reduced from 9.7% (58 of 629) to 4.7% (29 of 629; HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.77; p < 0.01), CV death from 7.9% (47 of 629) to 4.1% (25 of 629; HR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.85; p < 0.01), and non-CV death numerically from 2.0% to 0.7% (p = 0.07). There was no significant difference in CABG-related major bleeding between the randomized treatments. CONCLUSIONS In the subgroup of patients undergoing CABG within 7 days after the last study drug intake, ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel was associated with a substantial reduction in total and CV mortality without excess risk of CABG-related bleeding.

Ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes and diabetes: a substudy from the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial

Aims Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) have high platelet reactivity and are at increased risk of ischaemic events and bleeding post-acute coronary syndromes (ACS). In the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial, ticagrelor reduced the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, but with similar rates of major bleeding compared with clopidogrel. We aimed to investigate the outcome with ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel in patients with DM or poor glycaemic control. Methods and results We analysed patients with pre-existing DM (n = 4662), including 1036 patients on insulin, those without DM (n = 13 951), and subgroups based on admission levels of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c; n = 15 150). In patients with DM, the reduction in the primary composite endpoint (HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.76–1.03), all-cause mortality (HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.66–1.01), and stent thrombosis (HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.36–1.17) with no increase in major bleeding (HR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.81–1.12) with ticagrelor was consistent with the overall cohort and without significant diabetes status-by-treatment interactions. There was no heterogeneity between patients with or without ongoing insulin treatment. Ticagrelor reduced the primary endpoint, all-cause mortality, and stent thrombosis in patients with HbA1c above the median (HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.70–0.91; HR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.65–0.93; and HR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.39–1.00, respectively) with similar bleeding rates (HR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.86–1.12). Conclusion Ticagrelor, when compared with clopidogrel, reduced ischaemic events in ACS patients irrespective of diabetic status and glycaemic control, without an increase in major bleeding events.

Pexelizumab, an Anti-C5 Complement Antibody, as Adjunctive Therapy to Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Acute Myocardial Infarction The COMplement inhibition in Myocardial infarction treated with Angioplasty (COMMA) Trial

Background—Complement, activated during myocardial ischemia and reperfusion, causes myocardial damage through multiple processes. The COMplement inhibition in Myocardial infarction treated with Angioplasty (COMMA) trial was performed to determine the effect of pexelizumab, a C5 complement inhibitor, on infarct size in patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction (MI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods and Results—In COMMA, 960 patients with MI (20% isolated inferior MI) were randomized to placebo, pexelizumab 2.0-mg/kg bolus, or pexelizumab 2.0-mg/kg bolus and 0.05-mg/kg per h infusion for 20 hours. Infarct size by creatine kinase–MB area under the curve, the primary outcome, did not differ significantly between groups (placebo median, 4393; bolus pexelizumab, 4526; bolus plus infusion pexelizumab, 4713 [ng/mL] · h; P =0.89 for bolus versus placebo; P =0.76 for bolus plus infusion versus placebo), nor did the composite of 90-day death, new or worsening heart failure, shock, or stroke (placebo, 11.1%; bolus, 10.7%; bolus plus infusion, 8.5%). The ninety-day mortality rate was significantly lower with pexelizumab bolus plus infusion (1.8% versus 5.9% with placebo; nominal P =0.014); the bolus-only group had an intermediate mortality rate (4.2%). Conclusions—In patients with ST-elevation MI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, pexelizumab had no measurable effect on infarct size. However, the significant reduction in mortality suggests that pexelizumab may benefit patients through alternative novel mechanisms and provides impetus for additional investigation.

Darapladib for Preventing Ischemic Events in Stable Coronary Heart Disease

BACKGROUND Elevated lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 activity promotes the development of vulnerable atherosclerotic plaques, and elevated plasma levels of this enzyme are associated with an increased risk of coronary events. Darapladib is a selective oral inhibitor of lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2. METHODS In a double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 15,828 patients with stable coronary heart disease to receive either once-daily darapladib (at a dose of 160 mg) or placebo. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Secondary end points included the components of the primary end point as well as major coronary events (death from coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, or urgent coronary revascularization for myocardial ischemia) and total coronary events (death from coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, hospitalization for unstable angina, or any coronary revascularization). RESULTS During a median follow-up period of 3.7 years, the primary end point occurred in 769 of 7924 patients (9.7%) in the darapladib group and 819 of 7904 patients (10.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the darapladib group, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.03; P=0.20). There were also no significant between-group differences in the rates of the individual components of the primary end point or in all-cause mortality. Darapladib, as compared with placebo, reduced the rate of major coronary events (9.3% vs. 10.3%; hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.00; P=0.045) and total coronary events (14.6% vs. 16.1%; hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84 to 0.98; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS In patients with stable coronary heart disease, darapladib did not significantly reduce the risk of the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; STABILITY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00799903.).