Rationale and design of the LEADERS FREE trial: A randomized double-blind comparison of the BioFreedom drug-coated stent vs the Gazelle bare metal stent in patients at high bleeding risk using a short (1 month) course of dual antiplatelet therapy.

BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE: Major bleeding is a powerful predictor of morbidity and mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). To avoid prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), current guidelines recommend using a bare metal stent when PCI is indicated to treat patients at high risk of bleeding. The Biolimus A9-coated BioFreedom is a new stainless steel drug-coated stent devoid of polymer and has been shown to be associated with a low median late-loss of 0.17 mm at 12 months of follow-up. In an animal model, 98% of the drug has diffused into the vessel wall at 1 month. It is therefore reasonable to consider that such a device may have a potential safety advantage, and a lesser dependence on prolonged DAPT than a polymer-coated drug-eluting stent. TRIAL DESIGN: A total of 2456 patients considered at high risk of bleeding will be randomized in a double-blind fashion to the BioFreedom drug-coated stent or to a control arm (Gazelle bare metal stent). Both groups will be treated with DAPT during 1 month only, followed by long-term aspirin alone. At 1-year follow-up, the primary safety endpoint (a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis) will be assessed by a non-inferiority analysis, and the primary efficacy endpoint (clinically driven target lesion revascularization) by a superiority analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This trial should help better characterize a neglected subset of PCI patients and quantify both their thrombotic and bleeding risks. It has the potential to decrease the need for target lesion revascularization in patients unable to tolerate a prolonged course of DAPT and will assess the shortest DAPT course ever used with an active stent

Ghrelin Receptor Signaling Is Not Required for Glucocorticoid-Induced Obesity in Male Mice

Chronically elevated levels of glucocorticoids increase food intake, weight gain, and adiposity. Similarly, ghrelin, a gut-secreted hormone, is also associated with weight gain, adiposity, and increased feeding. Here we sought to determine if corticosterone-induced metabolic and behavioral changes require functional ghrelin receptors (GHSR). To do this, we treated male C57BL mice with chronic corticosterone (CORT) mixed in their drinking water for 28 days. Half of these mice received the GHSR antagonist JMV2959 via osmotic minipumps while treated with CORT. In a second experiment, we gave the same CORT protocol to mice with a targeted mutation to the GHSR or their wild-type littermates. As expected, CORT treatment increased food intake, weight gain, and adiposity, but contrary to expectations, mice treated with a GHSR receptor antagonist or GHSR knockout (KO) mice did not show attenuated food intake, weight gain, or adiposity in response to CORT. Similarly, the effects of CORT on the liver were the same or more pronounced in GHSR antagonist-treated and GHSR KO mice. Treatment with JMV2959 did attenuate the effects of chronic CORT on glycemic regulation as determined by the glucose tolerance test. Finally, disruption of GHSR signaling resulted in behavioral responses associated with social withdrawal, potentially due to neuroprotective effects of GHSR activation. In all, we propose that blocking GHSR signaling helps to moderate glucose concentrations when CORT levels are high, but blocking GHSR signaling does not prevent increased food intake, weight gain, or increased adiposity produced by chronic CORT

Drug-eluting or bare-metal stents for percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials.

BACKGROUND New-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) have mostly been investigated in head-to-head non-inferiority trials against early-generation DES and have typically shown similar efficacy and superior safety. How the safety profile of new-generation DES compares with that of bare-metal stents (BMS) is less clear. METHODS We did an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials to compare outcomes after implantation of new-generation DES or BMS among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiac death or myocardial infarction. Data were pooled in a one-stage random-effects meta-analysis and examined at maximum follow-up and a 1-year landmark. Risk estimates are reported as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs. This study is registered in PROSPERO, number CRD42017060520. FINDINGS We obtained individual data for 26 616 patients in 20 randomised trials. Mean follow-up was 3·2 (SD 1·8) years. The risk of the primary outcome was reduced in DES recipients compared with BMS recipients (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·78-0·90, p<0·001) owing to a reduced risk of myocardial infarction (0·79, 0·71-0·88, p<0·001) and a possible slight but non-significant cardiac mortality benefit (0·89, 0·78-1·01, p=0·075). All-cause death was unaffected (HR with DES 0·96, 95% CI 0·88-1·05, p=0·358), but risk was lowered for definite stent thrombosis (0·63, 0·50-0·80, p<0·001) and target-vessel revascularisation (0·55, 0·50-0·60, p<0·001). We saw a time-dependent treatment effect, with DES being associated with lower risk of the primary outcome than BMS up to 1 year after placement. While the effect was maintained in the longer term, there was no further divergence from BMS after 1 year. INTERPRETATION The performance of new-generation DES in the first year after implantation means that BMS should no longer be considered the gold standard for safety. Further development of DES technology should target improvements in clinical outcomes beyond 1 year. FUNDING Bern University Hospital

Drug-Eluting or Bare-Metal Stents for Left Anterior Descending or Left Main Coronary Artery Revascularization.

Background New-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce target-vessel revascularization compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), and recent data suggest that DES have the potential to decrease the risk of myocardial infarction and cardiovascular mortality. We evaluated the treatment effect of DES versus BMS according to the target artery (left anterior descending [LAD] and/or left main [LM] versus other territories [no-LAD/LM]). Methods and Results The Coronary Stent Trialist (CST) Collaboration gathered individual patient data of randomized trials of DES versus BMS for the treatment of coronary artery disease. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiac death or myocardial infarction. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were derived from a 1-stage individual patient data meta-analysis. We included 26 024 patients across 19 trials: 13 650 (52.4%) in the LAD/LM and 12 373 (47.6%) in the no-LAD/LM group. At 6-year follow-up, there was strong evidence that the treatment effect of DES versus BMS depended on the target vessel (P-interaction=0.024). Compared with BMS, DES reduced the risk of cardiac death or myocardial infarction to a greater extent in the LAD/LM (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68-0.85) than in the no-LAD/LM territories (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83-1.05). This benefit was driven by a lower risk of cardiac death (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.98) and myocardial infarction (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.85) in patients with LAD/LM disease randomized to DES. An interaction (P=0.004) was also found for all-cause mortality with patients with LAD/LM disease deriving benefit from DES (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.97). Conclusions As compared with BMS, new-generation DES were associated with sustained reduction in the composite of cardiac death or myocardial infarction if used for the treatment of LAD or left main coronary stenoses. Registration URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO; Unique identifier: CRD42017060520