Mary T. Brophy

Combined Angiotensin Inhibition for the Treatment of Diabetic Nephropathy

BACKGROUND Combination therapy with angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) decreases proteinuria; however, its safety and effect on the progression of kidney disease are uncertain. Methods We provided losartan (at a dose of 100 mg per day) to patients with type 2 diabetes, a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (with albumin measured in milligrams and creatinine measured in grams) of at least 300, and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of 30.0 to 89.9 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) of body-surface area and then randomly assigned them to receive lisinopril (at a dose of 10 to 40 mg per day) or placebo. The primary end point was the first occurrence of a change in the estimated GFR (a decline of ≥ 30 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) if the initial estimated GFR was ≥ 60 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) or a decline of ≥ 50% if the initial estimated GFR was <60 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2)), end-stage renal disease (ESRD), or death. The secondary renal end point was the first occurrence of a decline in the estimated GFR or ESRD. Safety outcomes included mortality, hyperkalemia, and acute kidney injury. Results The study was stopped early owing to safety concerns. Among 1448 randomly assigned patients with a median follow-up of 2.2 years, there were 152 primary end-point events in the monotherapy group and 132 in the combination-therapy group (hazard ratio with combination therapy, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.12; P=0.30). A trend toward a benefit from combination therapy with respect to the secondary end point (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.05; P=0.10) decreased with time (P=0.02 for nonproportionality). There was no benefit with respect to mortality (hazard ratio for death, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.49; P=0.75) or cardiovascular events. Combination therapy increased the risk of hyperkalemia (6.3 events per 100 person-years, vs. 2.6 events per 100 person-years with monotherapy; P<0.001) and acute kidney injury (12.2 vs. 6.7 events per 100 person-years, P<0.001). Conclusions Combination therapy with an ACE inhibitor and an ARB was associated with an increased risk of adverse events among patients with diabetic nephropathy. (Funded by the Cooperative Studies Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development; VA NEPHRON-D ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00555217.).

Therapies for Active Rheumatoid Arthritis after Methotrexate Failure

BACKGROUND Few blinded trials have compared conventional therapy consisting of a combination of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs with biologic agents in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who have active disease despite treatment with methotrexate--a common scenario in the management of rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS We conducted a 48-week, double-blind, noninferiority trial in which we randomly assigned 353 participants with rheumatoid arthritis who had active disease despite methotrexate therapy to a triple regimen of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (methotrexate, sulfasalazine, and hydroxychloroquine) or etanercept plus methotrexate. Patients who did not have an improvement at 24 weeks according to a prespecified threshold were switched in a blinded fashion to the other therapy. The primary outcome was improvement in the Disease Activity Score for 28-joint counts (DAS28, with scores ranging from 2 to 10 and higher scores indicating more disease activity) at week 48. RESULTS Both groups had significant improvement over the course of the first 24 weeks (P=0.001 for the comparison with baseline). A total of 27% of participants in each group required a switch in treatment at 24 weeks. Participants in both groups who switched therapies had improvement after switching (P<0.001), and the response after switching did not differ significantly between the two groups (P=0.08). The change between baseline and 48 weeks in the DAS28 was similar in the two groups (-2.1 with triple therapy and -2.3 with etanercept and methotrexate, P=0.26); triple therapy was noninferior to etanercept and methotrexate, since the 95% upper confidence limit of 0.41 for the difference in change in DAS28 was below the margin for noninferiority of 0.6 (P=0.002). There were no significant between-group differences in secondary outcomes, including radiographic progression, pain, and health-related quality of life, or in major adverse events associated with the medications. CONCLUSIONS With respect to clinical benefit, triple therapy, with sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine added to methotrexate, was noninferior to etanercept plus methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had active disease despite methotrexate therapy. (Funded by the Cooperative Studies Program, Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development, and others; CSP 551 RACAT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00405275.)

Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program Clinical Trial Comparing Combined Warfarin and Aspirin With Aspirin Alone in Survivors of Acute Myocardial Infarction Primary Results of the CHAMP Study

Background—Both aspirin and warfarin when used alone are effective in the secondary prevention of vascular events and death after acute myocardial infarction. We tested the hypothesis that aspirin and warfarin therapy, when combined, would be more effective than aspirin monotherapy. Methods and Results—We conducted a randomized open-label study to compare the efficacy of warfarin (target international normalized ratio 1.5 to 2.5 IU) plus aspirin (81 mg daily) with the efficacy of aspirin monotherapy (162 mg daily) in reducing the total mortality in 5059 patients enrolled within 14 days of infarction and followed for a median of 2.7 years. Secondary end points included recurrent myocardial infarction, stroke, and major hemorrhage. Four hundred thirty-eight (17.3%) of 2537 patients assigned to the aspirin group and 444 (17.6%) of 2522 patients assigned to the combination group died (log-rank P =0.76). Recurrent myocardial infarction occurred in 333 patients (13.1%) taking aspirin and in 336 patients (13.3%) taking combination therapy (log-rank P =0.78). Stroke occurred in 89 patients (3.5%) taking aspirin and in 79 patients (3.1%) taking combination therapy (log-rank P =0.52). Major bleeding occurred more frequently in the combination therapy group than in the aspirin group (1.28 versus 0.72 events per 100 person years of follow-up, respectively;P <0.001). There were 14 individuals with intracranial bleeds in both the aspirin and combination therapy groups. Conclusions—In post–myocardial infarction patients, warfarin therapy (at a mean international normalized ratio of 1.8) combined with low-dose aspirin did not provide a clinical benefit beyond that achievable with aspirin monotherapy.

Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program Clinical Trial Comparing Combined Warfarin and Aspirin With Aspirin Alone in Survivors of Acute Myocardial Infarction

Background— Both aspirin and warfarin when used alone are effective in the secondary prevention of vascular events and death after acute myocardial infarction. We tested the hypothesis that aspirin and warfarin therapy, when combined, would be more effective than aspirin monotherapy. Methods and Results— We conducted a randomized open-label study to compare the efficacy of warfarin (target international normalized ratio 1.5 to 2.5 IU) plus aspirin (81 mg daily) with the efficacy of aspirin monotherapy (162 mg daily) in reducing the total mortality in 5059 patients enrolled within 14 days of infarction and followed for a median of 2.7 years. Secondary end points included recurrent myocardial infarction, stroke, and major hemorrhage. Four hundred thirty-eight (17.3%) of 2537 patients assigned to the aspirin group and 444 (17.6%) of 2522 patients assigned to the combination group died (log-rank P=0.76). Recurrent myocardial infarction occurred in 333 patients (13.1%) taking aspirin and in 336 patients (13.3%...

The Association Between Statins and Cancer Incidence in a Veterans Population

BACKGROUND Meta-analyses of trials of 3-hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl-CoA reductase inhibitors or statins for cardiovascular disease prevention have failed to show any statistically significant benefit of statins for cancer prevention. However, these trials included relatively young participants, who develop few cancers, and their follow-up periods may have been too short to detect an association between statin use and cancer incidence. We investigated this association in a population of veterans. METHODS We identified patients using antihypertensive medications but no cholesterol-lowering medications (n = 25,594) and patients using statins (n = 37,248) who were enrolled in the Veterans Affairs New England Healthcare System between January 1, 1997, and December 31, 2005. Age- and multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate the hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) for cancer incidence, excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer, among patients taking statins compared with patients taking antihypertensive medications and among patients grouped by statin dose (as equivalent simvastatin dose). All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS The absolute incidence of total cancers was 9.4% among statin users and 13.2% among nonusers (difference = 3.8%, 95% CI = 3.3% to 4.3%, P(difference) < .001). Statin users had a statistically significant lower risk for total cancer than nonusers after adjustment for age (HR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.73 to 0.80) and multiple potential confounders (HR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.70 to 0.78). After multivariable adjustment, a statistically significantly decreased risk of all cancers was also associated with increasing statin use (P(trend) < .001). CONCLUSIONS Patients using statins may be at lower risk for developing cancer. Additional observational studies and randomized trials of statins for cancer prevention are warranted.

Efficacy and safety of combined anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy versus anticoagulant monotherapy after mechanical heart-valve replacement: A metaanalysis

We performed a metaanalysis of five randomized controlled trials to compare the efficacy and safety of combined oral anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy versus oral anticoagulants alone after prosthetic heart-valve replacement. The combined regimen reduced embolism and overall mortality by approximately 67% (pooled odds ratio [OR] 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16 to 0.69; p = 0.0032) and 40% (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.12; p = 0.11), respectively, but increased the risk of hemorrhage by approximately 65% (OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.15 to 2.39; p = 0.0069) and of major gastrointestinal hemorrhage by approximately 250% (OR 3.47; 95% CI 1.43 to 8.40; p = 0.0058). It is estimated that for every 1.6 patients who had their stroke prevented by combination therapy, there was an excess of one major gastrointestinal bleed. This metaanalysis suggests that the benefits derived from the enhanced antithrombotic potential of combined therapy outweigh the toxic effects resulting from the enhanced anticoagulant potential of this regimen.

Design of Combination Angiotensin Receptor Blocker and Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor for Treatment of Diabetic Nephropathy (VA NEPHRON-D)

Both angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) can slow the progression of diabetic nephropathy. Even with ACEI or ARB treatment, the proportion of patients who progress to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) remains high. Interventions that achieve more complete blockade of the renin-angiotensin system, such as combination ACEI and ARB, might be beneficial. This approach may decrease progression of nondiabetic kidney disease. In diabetic nephropathy, combination therapy decreases proteinuria, but its effect in slowing progression is unknown. In addition, the potential for hyperkalemia may limit the utility of combined therapy in this population. VA NEPHRON-D is a randomized, double-blind, multicenter clinical trial to assess the effect of combination losartan and lisinopril, compared with losartan alone, on the progression of kidney disease in 1850 patients with diabetes and overt proteinuria. The primary endpoints are time to (1) reduction in estimated GFR (eGFR) of > 50% (if baseline < 60 ml/min/1.73 m(2)); (2) reduction in eGFR of 30 ml/min/1.73 m(2) (if baseline > or = 60 ml/min/1.73 m(2)); (3) progression to ESRD (need for dialysis, renal transplant, or eGFR < 15 ml/min/1.73 m(2)); or (4) death. The secondary endpoint is time to change in eGFR or ESRD. Tertiary endpoints are cardiovascular events, slope of change in eGFR, and change in albuminuria at 1 yr. Specific safety endpoints are serious hyperkalemia (potassium > 6 mEq/L, requiring admission, emergency room visit, or dialysis), all-cause mortality, and other serious adverse events. This paper discusses the design and key methodological issues that arose during the planning of the study.

Anaphylactoid reactions to vitamin K.

Anaphylactoid reactions in patients receiving intravenously administered vitamin K have been reported in the literature. To summarize the known data on anaphylactoid reactions from administration of vitamin K, we reviewed all published and unpublished reports of this adverse reaction. Published reports were obtained through medline (1966–1999) and EMBASE (1971–1999) searches of the English language literature and review of references from identified case reports. Unpublished reports were obtained using the Spontaneous Reporting System Adverse Reaction database of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between August 1968 and September 1997. All adverse drug reactions to vitamin K were categorized by route of drug administration, dose and standard adverse reaction code. In the FDA reports, we defined anaphylactoid reactions as any adverse drug reaction coded as either anaphylaxis, allergic reaction, apnea, dyspnea, death, heart arrest, hypotension, shock or vasodilatation. Additionally, all fatal and life-threatening FDA reported reactions were reviewed to determine if they could represent an anaphylactoid reaction missed by the above definition.The literature review uncovered a total of 23 cases (3 fatal) of anaphylactoid reactions from intravenous vitamin K. The FDA database contained a total of 2236 adverse drug reactions reported in 1019 patients receiving vitamin K by all routes of administration. Of the 192 patients with reactions reported for intravenous vitamin K, 132 patients (69%%) had a reaction defined as anaphylactoid, with 24 fatalities (18%%) attributed to the vitamin K reaction. There were 21 patients with anaphylactoid reactions and 4 fatalities reported with doses of intravenous vitamin K of less than 5[emsp4 ]mgs. For the 217 patients with reactions reported due to vitamin K via a non-intravenous route of administration, 38 patients had reactions meeting the definition of anaphylactoid (18%%), with 1 fatality (3%%) attributed to the drug.The absolute risk of an anaphylactoid reaction to intravenous vitamin K cannot be determined by this study, but the relatively small number of documented cases despite widespread use of this drug suggest that the reaction is rare. Anaphylactic reactions and case fatality reports were found even when intravenous vitamin K was given at low doses by slow dilute infusion. The pathogenesis of this reaction is unknown and may be multifactorial with etiologies including vasodilation induced by the solubilizing vehicle or immune-mediated processes. We conclude that use of intravenous vitamin K should be limited to patients with serious hemorrhage due to a coagulopathy that is secondary to a relative or absolute deficiency of vitamin K.

Anticoagulant use for atrial fibrillation in the elderly

Objectives: To determine the influence of advanced age on anticoagulant use in subjects with atrial fibrillation and to explore the extent to which risk factors for stroke and contraindications to anticoagulant therapy predict subsequent use.

Million Veteran Program: A mega-biobank to study genetic influences on health and disease.

OBJECTIVE To describe the design and ongoing conduct of the Million Veteran Program (MVP), as an observational cohort study and mega-biobank in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Data are being collected from participants using questionnaires, the VA electronic health record, and a blood sample for genomic and other testing. Several ongoing projects are linked to MVP, both as peer-reviewed research studies and as activities to help develop an infrastructure for future, broad-based research uses. RESULTS Formal planning for MVP commenced in 2009; the protocol was approved in 2010, and enrollment began in 2011. As of August 3, 2015, and with a steady state of ≈50 recruiting sites nationwide, N = 397,104 veterans have been enrolled. Among N = 199,348 with currently available genotyping data, most participants (as expected) are male (92.0%) between the ages of 50 and 69 years (55.0%). On the basis of self-reported race, white (77.2%) and African American (13.5%) populations are well represented. CONCLUSIONS By helping to promote the future integration of genetic testing in health care delivery, including clinical decision making, the MVP is designed to contribute to the development of precision medicine.