Nicola Greenlaw

Women and men with stable coronary artery disease have similar clinical outcomes: insights from the international prospective CLARIFY registry

Aims Men and women differ in terms of presentation and management in coronary artery disease (CAD). Whether these differences translate into different clinical outcomes in stable CAD is unclear. We analysed data from the international prospective CLARIFY registry to compare cardiovascular clinical outcomes in men and women with stable CAD. Methods and results We analysed 1-year outcomes in 30 977 outpatients with stable CAD [23 975 (77.4%) men; 7002 (22.6%) women]. Women were older than men, more likely to have hypertension and diabetes, and less likely to exercise or smoke. They had more frequent angina, but were less likely to have undergone diagnostic non-invasive testing or coronary angiography. Women received less optimized treatment for stable CAD. One-year outcomes were similar for men and women for the composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or stroke [adjusted rates 1.7 vs. 1.8%, respectively, odds ratio (OR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75–1.15]; all-cause death (adjusted 1.5 vs. 1.6%, OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.72–1.13); fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction (adjusted 1.0 vs. 0.9%, OR: 0.81, 95 CI: 0.60–1.08); and cardiovascular death or non-fatal myocardial infarction (adjusted 1.4 vs. 1.4%, OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.70–1.12). Fewer women underwent revascularization (2.6 vs. 2.2%, OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.64–0.93), although appropriateness was not analysed. Conclusion The risk profiles of women and men with stable CAD differ substantially. However, 1-year outcomes were similar. Fewer women underwent revascularization. Further research is needed to better understand gender determinants of outcome and devise strategies to minimize bias in the management and treatment of women.

Cardiovascular event rates and mortality according to achieved systolic and diastolic blood pressure in patients with stable coronary artery disease: an international cohort study

BACKGROUND The optimum blood pressure target in hypertension remains debated, especially in coronary artery disease, given concerns for reduced myocardial perfusion if diastolic blood pressure is too low. We aimed to study the association between achieved blood pressure and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease and hypertension. METHODS We analysed data from 22 672 patients with stable coronary artery disease enrolled (from Nov 26, 2009, to June 30, 2010) in the CLARIFY registry (including patients from 45 countries) and treated for hypertension. Systolic and diastolic blood pressures before each event were averaged and categorised into 10 mm Hg increments. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated with multivariable adjusted Cox proportional hazards models, using the 120-129 mm Hg systolic blood pressure and 70-79 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure subgroups as reference. FINDINGS After a median follow-up of 5·0 years, increased systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or more and diastolic blood pressure of 80 mm Hg or more were each associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events. Systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg was also associated with increased risk for the primary outcome (adjusted HR 1·56, 95% CI 1·36-1·81). Likewise, diastolic blood pressure of less than 70 mm Hg was associated with an increase in the primary outcome (adjusted HR 1·41 [1·24-1·61] for diastolic blood pressure of 60-69 mm Hg and 2·01 [1·50-2·70] for diastolic blood pressure of less than 60 mm Hg). INTERPRETATION In patients with hypertension and coronary artery disease from routine clinical practice, systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure of less than 70 mm Hg were each associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including mortality, supporting the existence of a J-curve phenomenon. This finding suggests that caution should be taken in the use of blood pressure-lowering treatment in patients with coronary artery disease. FUNDING Servier.

Aliskiren, Enalapril, or Aliskiren and Enalapril in Heart Failure

BACKGROUND Among patients with chronic heart failure, angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduce mortality and hospitalization, but the role of a renin inhibitor in such patients is unknown. We compared the ACE inhibitor enalapril with the renin inhibitor aliskiren (to test superiority or at least noninferiority) and with the combination of the two treatments (to test superiority) in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction. METHODS After a single-blind run-in period, we assigned patients, in a double-blind fashion, to one of three groups: 2336 patients were assigned to receive enalapril at a dose of 5 or 10 mg twice daily, 2340 to receive aliskiren at a dose of 300 mg once daily, and 2340 to receive both treatments (combination therapy). The primary composite outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure. RESULTS After a median follow-up of 36.6 months, the primary outcome occurred in 770 patients (32.9%) in the combination-therapy group and in 808 (34.6%) in the enalapril group (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.03). The primary outcome occurred in 791 patients (33.8%) in the aliskiren group (hazard ratio vs. enalapril, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.10); the prespecified test for noninferiority was not met. There was a higher risk of hypotensive symptoms in the combination-therapy group than in the enalapril group (13.8% vs. 11.0%, P=0.005), as well as higher risks of an elevated serum creatinine level (4.1% vs. 2.7%, P=0.009) and an elevated potassium level (17.1% vs. 12.5%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS In patients with chronic heart failure, the addition of aliskiren to enalapril led to more adverse events without an increase in benefit. Noninferiority was not shown for aliskiren as compared with enalapril. (Funded by Novartis; ATMOSPHERE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00853658.).

Intravenous ferric carboxymaltose in iron-deficient chronic heart failure patients with and without anaemia: a subanalysis of the FAIR-HF trial

Therapy with i.v. iron in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) and iron deficiency (ID) improves symptoms, functional capacity, and quality of life. We sought to investigate whether these beneficial outcomes are independent of anaemia.

Heart Rate and Use of Beta-Blockers in Stable Outpatients with Coronary Artery Disease

Background Heart rate (HR) is an emerging risk factor in coronary artery disease (CAD). However, there is little contemporary data regarding HR and the use of HR-lowering medications, particularly beta-blockers, among patients with stable CAD in routine clinical practice. The goal of the present analysis was to describe HR in such patients, overall and in relation to beta-blocker use, and to describe the determinants of HR. Methods and Findings CLARIFY is an international, prospective, observational, longitudinal registry of outpatients with stable CAD, defined as prior myocardial infarction or revascularization procedure, evidence of coronary stenosis of >50%, or chest pain associated with proven myocardial ischemia. A total of 33,438 patients from 45 countries in Europe, the Americas, Africa, Middle East, and Asia/Pacific were enrolled between November 2009 and July 2010. Most of the 33,177 patients included in this analysis were men (77.5%). Mean (SD) age was 64.2 (10.5) years, HR by pulse was 68.3 (10.6) bpm, and by electrocardiogram was 67.2 (11.4) bpm. Overall, 44.0% had HR≥70 bpm. Beta-blockers were used in 75.1% of patients and another 14.4% had intolerance or contraindications to beta-blocker therapy. Among 24,910 patients on beta-blockers, 41.1% had HR≥70 bpm. HR≥70 bpm was independently associated with higher prevalence and severity of angina, more frequent evidence of myocardial ischemia, and lack of use of HR-lowering agents. Conclusions Despite a high rate of use of beta-blockers, stable CAD patients often have resting HR≥70 bpm, which was associated with an overall worse health status, more frequent angina and ischemia. Further HR lowering is possible in many patients with CAD. Whether it will improve symptoms and outcomes is being tested. Trial Registration Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN43070564

Comparison of the two most commonly used treatments for pyoderma gangrenosum:Results of the STOP GAP randomised controlled trial

Objective To determine whether ciclosporin is superior to prednisolone for the treatment of pyoderma gangrenosum, a painful, ulcerating skin disease with a poor evidence base for management. Design Multicentre, parallel group, observer blind, randomised controlled trial. Setting 39 UK hospitals, recruiting from June 2009 to November 2012. Participants 121 patients (73 women, mean age 54 years) with clinician diagnosed pyoderma gangrenosum. Clinical diagnosis was revised in nine participants after randomisation, leaving 112 participants in the analysis set (59 ciclosporin; 53 prednisolone). Intervention Oral prednisolone 0.75 mg/kg/day compared with ciclosporin 4 mg/kg/day, to a maximum dose of 75 and 400 mg/day, respectively. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was speed of healing over six weeks, captured using digital images and assessed by blinded investigators. Secondary outcomes were time to healing, global treatment response, resolution of inflammation, self reported pain, quality of life, number of treatment failures, adverse reactions, and time to recurrence. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and six weeks and when the ulcer had healed (to a maximum of six months). Results Of the 112 participants, 108 had complete primary outcome data at baseline and six weeks (57 ciclosporin; 51 prednisolone). Groups were balanced at baseline. The mean (SD) speed of healing at six weeks was −0.21 (1.00) cm2/day in the ciclosporin group compared with −0.14 (0.42) cm2/day in the prednisolone group. The adjusted mean difference showed no between group difference (0.003 cm2/day, 95% confidence interval −0.20 to 0.21; P=0.97). By six months, ulcers had healed in 28/59 (47%) participants in the ciclosporin group compared with 25/53 (47%) in the prednisolone group. In those with healed ulcers, eight (30%) receiving ciclosporin and seven (28%) receiving prednisolone had a recurrence. Adverse reactions were similar for the two groups (68% ciclosporin and 66% prednisolone), but serious adverse reactions, especially infections, were more common in the prednisolone group. Conclusion Prednisolone and ciclosporin did not differ across a range of objective and patient reported outcomes. Treatment decisions for individual patients may be guided by the different side effect profiles of the two drugs and patient preference. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN35898459.

Pharmacist intervention in primary care to improve outcomes in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction

BACKGROUND Meta-analysis of small trials suggests that pharmacist-led collaborative review and revision of medical treatment may improve outcomes in heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS We studied patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction in a cluster-randomized controlled, event driven, trial in primary care. We allocated 87 practices (1090 patients) to pharmacist intervention and 87 practices (1074 patients) to usual care. The intervention was delivered by non-specialist pharmacists working with family doctors to optimize medical treatment. The primary outcome was a composite of death or hospital admission for worsening heart failure. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN70118765. The median follow-up was 4.7 years. At baseline, 86% of patients in both groups were treated with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker. In patients not receiving one or other of these medications, or receiving less than the recommended dose, treatment was started, or the dose increased, in 33.1% of patients in the intervention group and in 18.5% of the usual care group [odds ratio (OR) 2.26, 95% CI 1.64-3.10; P< 0.001]. At baseline, 62% of each group were treated with a β-blocker and the proportions starting or having an increase in the dose were 17.9% in the intervention group and 11.1% in the usual care group (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.31-2.35; P< 0.001). The primary outcome occurred in 35.8% of patients in the intervention group and 35.4% in the usual care group (hazard ratio 0.97, 95% CI 0.83-1.14; P = 0.72). There was no difference in any secondary outcome. CONCLUSION A low-intensity, pharmacist-led collaborative intervention in primary care resulted in modest improvements in prescribing of disease-modifying medications but did not improve clinical outcomes in a population that was relatively well treated at baseline.

A putative placebo analysis of the effects of LCZ696 on clinical outcomes in heart failure

Aims Although active-controlled trials with renin–angiotensin inhibitors are ethically mandated in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, clinicians and regulators often want to know how the experimental therapy would perform compared with placebo. The angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 was compared with enalapril in PARADIGM-HF. We made indirect comparisons of the effects of LCZ696 with putative placebos. Methods and results We used the treatment-arm of the Studies Of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD-T) as the reference trial for comparison of an ACE inhibitor to placebo and the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity-Alternative trial (CHARM-Alternative) as the reference trial for comparison of an ARB to placebo. The hazard ratio of LCZ696 vs. a putative placebo was estimated through the product of the hazard ratio of LCZ696 vs. enalapril (active-control) and that of the historical active-control (enalapril or candesartan) vs. placebo. For the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization in PARADIGM-HF, the relative risk reduction with LCZ696 vs. a putative placebo from SOLVD-T was 43% (95%CI 34–50%; P < 0.0001) with similarly large effects on cardiovascular death (34%, 21–44%; P < 0.0001) and heart failure hospitalization (49%, 39–58%; P < 0.0001). For all-cause mortality, the reduction compared with a putative placebo was 28% (95%CI 15–39%; P < 0.0001). Putative placebo analyses based on CHARM-Alternative gave relative risk reductions of 39% (95%CI 27–48%; P < 0.0001) for the composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, 32% (95%CI 16–45%; P < 0.0001) for cardiovascular death, 46% (33–56%; P < 0.0001) for heart failure hospitalization, and 26% (95%CI 11–39%; P < 0.0001) for all-cause mortality. Conclusion These indirect comparisons of LCZ696 with a putative placebo show that the strategy of combined angiotensin receptor blockade and neprilysin inhibition led to striking reductions in cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, as well as heart failure hospitalization. These benefits were obtained even though LCZ696 was added to comprehensive background beta-blocker and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist therapy.

The impact of intravenous ferric carboxymaltose on renal function: an analysis of the FAIR-HF study.

Anaemia and iron deficiency are constituents of the cardio‐renal syndrome in chronic heart failure (CHF). We investigated the effects of i.v. iron in iron‐deficient CHF patients on renal function, and the efficacy and safety of this therapy in patients with renal dysfunction.

Prevalence of Anginal Symptoms and Myocardial Ischemia and Their Effect on Clinical Outcomes in Outpatients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease Data From the International Observational CLARIFY Registry

IMPORTANCE In the era of widespread revascularization and effective antianginals, the prevalence and prognostic effect of anginal symptoms and myocardial ischemia among patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) are unknown. OBJECTIVE To describe the current clinical patterns among patients with stable CAD and the association of anginal symptoms or myocardial ischemia with clinical outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The Prospective Observational Longitudinal Registry of Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease (CLARIFY) registry enrolled outpatients in 45 countries with stable CAD in 2009 to 2010 with 2-year follow-up (median, 24.1 months; range, 1 day to 3 years). Enrollees included 32 105 outpatients with prior myocardial infarction, chest pain, and evidence of myocardial ischemia, evidence of CAD on angiography, or prior revascularization. Of these, 20 291 (63.2%) had undergone a noninvasive test for myocardial ischemia within 12 months of enrollment and were categorized into one of the following 4 groups: no angina or ischemia (n = 13 207 [65.1%]); evidence of myocardial ischemia without angina (silent ischemia) (n = 3028 [14.9%]); anginal symptoms alone (n = 1842 [9.1%]); and angina and ischemia (n = 2214 [10.9%]). EXPOSURES Stable CAD. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE The composite of cardiovascular (CV)-related death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. RESULTS Overall, 4056 patients (20.0%) had anginal symptoms and 5242 (25.8%) had evidence of myocardial ischemia on results of noninvasive testing. Of 469 CV-related deaths or myocardial infarctions, 58.2% occurred in patients without angina or ischemia, 12.4% in patients with ischemia alone, 12.2% in patients with angina alone, and 17.3% in patients with both. The hazard ratios for the primary outcome relative to patients without angina or ischemia and adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, smoking status, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidemia were 0.90 (95% CI, 0.68-1.20; P = .47) for ischemia alone, 1.45 (95% CI, 1.08-1.95; P = .01) for angina alone, and 1.75 (95% CI, 1.34-2.29; P < .001) for both. Similar findings were observed for CV-related death and for fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In outpatients with stable CAD, anginal symptoms (with or without ischemia on noninvasive testing) but not silent ischemia appear to be associated with an increased risk for adverse CV outcomes. Most CV events occurred in patients without angina or ischemia. TRIAL REGISTRATION isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN43070564.