Tiotropium versus Salmeterol for the Prevention of Exacerbations of COPD

BACKGROUND Treatment guidelines recommend the use of inhaled long-acting bronchodilators to alleviate symptoms and reduce the risk of exacerbations in patients with moderate-tovery-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but do not specify whether a long-acting anticholinergic drug or a β2-agonist is the preferred agent. We investigated whether the anticholinergic drug tiotropium is superior to the β2-agonist salmeterol in preventing exacerbations of COPD. METHODS In a 1-year, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group trial, we compared the effect of treatment with 18 μg of tiotropium once daily with that of 50 μg of salmeterol twice daily on the incidence of moderate or severe exacerbations in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD and a history of exacerbations in the preceding year. RESULTS A total of 7376 patients were randomly assigned to and treated with tiotropium (3707 patients) or salmeterol (3669 patients). Tiotropium, as compared with salmeterol, increased the time to the first exacerbation (187 days vs. 145 days), with a 17% reduction in risk (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 0.90; P<0.001). Tiotropium also increased the time to the first severe exacerbation (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.85; P<0.001), reduced the annual number of moderate or severe exacerbations (0.64 vs. 0.72; rate ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.96; P=0.002), and reduced the annual number of severe exacerbations (0.09 vs. 0.13; rate ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.82; P<0.001). Overall, the incidence of serious adverse events and of adverse events leading to the discontinuation of treatment was similar in the two study groups. There were 64 deaths (1.7%) in the tiotropium group and 78 (2.1%) in the salmeterol group. CONCLUSIONS These results show that, in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD, tiotropium is more effective than salmeterol in preventing exacerbations. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00563381.

Management of dyslipidaemia in patients with coronary heart disease: Results from the ESC-EORP EUROASPIRE V survey in 27 countries

WOS: 000468732700018PubMed ID: 31054483Background and aims: One of the objectives of the ESC-EORP EUROASPIRE V survey is to determine how well European guidelines on the management of dyslipidaemias are implemented in coronary patients. Methods: Standardized methods were used by trained technicians to collect information on 7824 patients from 130 centers in 27 countries, from the medical records and at a visit at least 6 months after hospitalization for a coronary event. All lipid measurements were performed in one central laboratory. Patients were divided into three groups: on high-intensity LDL-C-lowering-drug therapy (LLT), on low or moderate-intensity LLT and on no LLT. Results: At the time of the visit, almost half of the patients were on a high-intensity LLT. Between hospital discharge and the visit, LLT had been reduced in intensity or interrupted in 20.8% of the patients and had been started or increased in intensity in 11.7%. In those who had interrupted LLT or had reduced the intensity, intolerance to LLT and the advice of their physician were reported as the reason why in 15.8 and 36.8% of the cases, respectively. LDL-C control was better in those on a high-intensity LLT compared to those on low or moderate intensity LLT. LDL-C control was better in men than women and in patients with self-reported diabetes. Conclusions: The results of the EUROASPIRE V survey show that most coronary patients have a less than optimal management of LDL-C. More professional strategies are needed, aiming at lifestyle changes and LLT adapted to the need of the individual patient.ESC - EORP; AmgenAmgen; Eli LillyEli Lilly; PfizerPfizer; SanofiSanofi-Aventis; Ferrer; Novo NordiskNovo NordiskThe EUROASPIRE V survey was carried out under the auspices of the ESC - EORP. Since the start of EORP, the following companies have supported the programme: Amgen, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Ferrer and Novo Nordisk. The sponsors of the EUROASPIRE surveys had no role in the design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, decision to publish, or writing the manuscript

Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in stable cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary cardiovascular prevention. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=−4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events

Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation

Contains fulltext : 125374.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Edoxaban is a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor with proven antithrombotic effects. The long-term efficacy and safety of edoxaban as compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation is not known. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial comparing two once-daily regimens of edoxaban with warfarin in 21,105 patients with moderate-to-high-risk atrial fibrillation (median follow-up, 2.8 years). The primary efficacy end point was stroke or systemic embolism. Each edoxaban regimen was tested for noninferiority to warfarin during the treatment period. The principal safety end point was major bleeding. RESULTS: The annualized rate of the primary end point during treatment was 1.50% with warfarin (median time in the therapeutic range, 68.4%), as compared with 1.18% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.79; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.99; P<0.001 for noninferiority) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 1.07; 97.5% CI, 0.87 to 1.31; P=0.005 for noninferiority). In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was a trend favoring high-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 0.87; 97.5% CI, 0.73 to 1.04; P=0.08) and an unfavorable trend with low-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 1.13; 97.5% CI, 0.96 to 1.34; P=0.10). The annualized rate of major bleeding was 3.43% with warfarin versus 2.75% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.91; P<0.001) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.55; P<0.001). The corresponding annualized rates of death from cardiovascular causes were 3.17% versus 2.74% (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.97; P=0.01), and 2.71% (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.96; P=0.008), and the corresponding rates of the key secondary end point (a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes) were 4.43% versus 3.85% (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.96; P=0.005), and 4.23% (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.05; P=0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Both once-daily regimens of edoxaban were noninferior to warfarin with respect to the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism and were associated with significantly lower rates of bleeding and death from cardiovascular causes. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development; ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00781391.)

Management of dyslipidaemia in patients with coronary heart disease: Results from the ESC-EORP EUROASPIRE V survey in 27 countries

Background and aims: One of the objectives of the ESC-EORP EUROASPIRE V survey is to determine how well European guidelines on the management of dyslipidaemias are implemented in coronary patients. Methods: Standardized methods were used by trained technicians to collect information on 7824 patients from 130 centers in 27 countries, from the medical records and at a visit at least 6 months after hospitalization for a coronary event. All lipid measurements were performed in one central laboratory. Patients were divided into three groups: on high-intensity LDL-C-lowering-drug therapy (LLT), on low or moderate-intensity LLT and on no LLT. Results: At the time of the visit, almost half of the patients were on a high-intensity LLT. Between hospital discharge and the visit, LLT had been reduced in intensity or interrupted in 20.8\% of the patients and had been started or increased in intensity in 11.7\%. In those who had interrupted LLT or had reduced the intensity, intolerance to LLT and the advice of their physician were reported as the reason why in 15.8 and 36.8\% of the cases, respectively. LDL-C control was better in those on a high-intensity LLT compared to those on low or moderate intensity LLT. LDL-C control was better in men than women and in patients with self-reported diabetes. Conclusions: The results of the EUROASPIRE V survey show that most coronary patients have a less than optimal management of LDL-C. More professional strategies are needed, aiming at lifestyle changes and LLT adapted to the need of the individual patient

Apixaban compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack: A subgroup analysis of the ARISTOTLE trial

Background: In the ARISTOTLE trial, the rate of stroke or systemic embolism was reduced by apixaban compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Patients with AF and previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) have a high risk of stroke. We therefore aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of apixaban compared with warfarin in prespecified subgroups of patients with and without previous stroke or TIA. Methods: Between Dec 19, 2006, and April 2, 2010, patients were enrolled in the ARISTOTLE trial at 1034 clinical sites in 39 countries. 18 201 patients with AF or atrial flutter were randomly assigned to receive apixaban 5 mg twice daily or warfarin (target international normalised ratio 2·0-3·0). The median duration of follow-up was 1·8 years (IQR 1·4-2·3). The primary efficacy outcome was stroke or systemic embolism, analysed by intention to treat. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding in the on-treatment population. All participants, investigators, and sponsors were masked to treatment assignments. In this subgroup analysis, we estimated event rates and used Cox models to compare outcomes in patients with and without previous stroke or TIA. The ARISTOTLE trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NTC00412984. Findings: Of the trial population, 3436 (19%) had a previous stroke or TIA. In the subgroup of patients with previous stroke or TIA, the rate of stroke or systemic embolism was 2·46 per 100 patient-years of follow-up in the apixaban group and 3·24 in the warfarin group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·76, 95% CI 0·56 to 1·03); in the subgroup of patients without previous stroke or TIA, the rate of stroke or systemic embolism was 1·01 per 100 patient-years of follow-up with apixaban and 1·23 with warfarin (HR 0·82, 95% CI 0·65 to 1·03; p for interaction=0·71). The absolute reduction in the rate of stroke and systemic embolism with apixaban versus warfarin was 0·77 per 100 patient-years of follow-up (95% CI -0·08 to 1·63) in patients with and 0·22 (-0·03 to 0·47) in those without previous stroke or TIA. The difference in major bleeding with apixaban compared with warfarin was 1·07 per 100 patient-years (95% CI 0·09-2·04) in patients with and 0·93 (0·54-1·32) in those without previous stroke or TIA. Interpretation: The effects of apixaban versus warfarin were consistent in patients with AF with and without previous stroke or TIA. Owing to the higher risk of these outcomes in patients with previous stroke or TIA, the absolute benefits of apixaban might be greater in this population. Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd