Efficacy and Safety of Ticagrelor Monotherapy by Clinical Presentation: Pre-Specified Analysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS Trial.

Background The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after coronary drug-eluting stent placement in adults with stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) versus acute coronary syndromes (ACS) remains uncertain. Methods and Results This was a prespecified subgroup analysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to the experimental or reference strategy, stratified by ACS (experimental, n=3750; reference, n=3737) versus SCAD (experimental, n=4230; reference, n=4251). The experimental strategy was 75 to 100 mg aspirin daily plus 90 mg ticagrelor twice daily for 1 month, followed by 23 months of ticagrelor monotherapy. The reference strategy was 75 to 100 mg aspirin daily plus either 75 mg clopidogrel daily (for SCAD) or 90 mg ticagrelor twice daily (for ACS) for 12 months, followed by aspirin monotherapy for 12 months. The primary end point at 2 years was a composite of all-cause mortality or non-fatal centrally adjudicated new Q-wave myocardial infarction. The key secondary safety end point was site-reported Bleeding Academic Research Consortium grade 3 or 5 bleeding. The primary end point occurred in 147 (3.92%) versus 169 (4.52%) patients with ACS (rate ratio [RR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.69-1.08; P=0.189), and in 157 (3.71%) versus 180 (4.23%) patients with SCAD (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71-1.08; P=0.221) with experimental and reference strategy, respectively (P-interaction=0.926). Bleeding Academic Research Consortium grade 3 or 5 bleeding occurred in 73 (1.95%) versus 100 (2.68%) patients with ACS (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.98; P=0.037), and in 90 (2.13%) versus 69 (1.62%) patients with SCAD (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.97-1.81; P=0.081; P-interaction=0.007). Conclusions While there was no evidence for differences in efficacy between treatment strategies by subgroup, the experimental strategy appeared to reduce bleeding risk in patients with ACS but not in patients with SCAD. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01813435

Bioresorbable Polymer-Coated Orsiro Versus Durable Polymer-Coated Resolute Onyx Stents (BIONYX):Rationale and design of the randomized TWENTE IV multicenter trial

Aim: The aim was to compare in a noninferiority trial the efficacy and safety of 2 contemporary drug-eluting stents (DESs): a novel, durable polymer-coated stent versus an established bioabsorbable polymer-coated stent. Methods and results: The BIONYX trial (ClinicalTrials.gov-no.NCT02508714) is an investigator-initiated, prospective, randomized, patient- and assessor-blinded, international, multicenter study in all-comer patients with all types of clinical syndromes and lesions who require percutaneous coronary interventions with DES. Patients at 7 study sites in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Israel were randomly assigned (1:1, stratified for gender and diabetes mellitus) to treatment with the novel, zotarolimus-eluting, durable polymer-coated Resolute Onyx stent that has a radiopaque, thin-strut, CoreWire stent platform versus the sirolimus-eluting, bioresorbable polymer-coated Orsiro stent (reference device) that has a very thin-strut, cobalt-chromium stent backbone. The primary end point is the 1-year incidence of the composite clinical end point target vessel failure consisting of cardiac death, target vessel–related myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target vessel revascularization. A power calculation, assuming a target vessel failure rate of 6.0% (noninferiority margin 2.5%), revealed that 2,470 study patients would give the study 80% power (α level 5%), allowing for up to 3% loss to follow-up. The first patient was enrolled on October 7, 2015; on December 23, 2016, the last patient entered the study. Conclusions: BIONYX is a large-scale, prospective, randomized, international, multicenter trial comparing a novel DES with durable coating versus a reference DES with biodegradable coating in all-comers. The study is the first randomized assessment of the Resolute Onyx stent, which is an often-used DES outside the United States

Ticagrelor Monotherapy or Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation: Per-Protocol Analysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS Trial.

Background In the GLOBAL LEADERS trial, ticagrelor monotherapy beyond 1 month compared with standard antiplatelet regimens after coronary stent implantation did not improve outcomes at intention-to-treat analysis. Considerable differences in treatment adherence between the experimental and control groups may have affected the intention-to-treat results. In this reanalysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial, we compared the experimental and control treatment strategies in a per-protocol analysis of patients who did not deviate from the study protocol. Methods and Results Baseline and postrandomization information were used to classify whether and when patients were deviating from the study protocol. With logistic regressions, we derived time-varying inverse probabilities of nondeviation from protocol to reconstruct the trial population without protocol deviation. The primary end point was a composite of all-cause mortality or nonfatal Q-wave myocardial infarction at 2 years. At 2-year follow-up, 1103 (13.8%) of 7980 patients in the experimental group and 785 (9.8%) of 7988 patients in the control group qualified as protocol deviators. At per-protocol analysis, the rate ratio for the primary end point was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.75-1.03; P=0.10) on the basis of 274 versus 325 events in the experimental versus control group. The rate ratio for the key safety end point of major bleeding was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.79-1.26; P=0.99). The per-protocol and intention-to-treat effect estimates were overall consistent. Conclusions Among patients who complied with the study protocol in the GLOBAL LEADERS trial, ticagrelor plus aspirin for 1 month followed by ticagrelor monotherapy was not superior to 1-year standard dual antiplatelet therapy followed by aspirin alone at 2 years after coronary stenting. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01813435

Impact of proton pump inhibitors on efficacy of antiplatelet strategies with ticagrelor or aspirin after percutaneous coronary intervention:Insights from the GLOBAL LEADERS trial

BACKGROUND Several studies have suggested that proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may reduce the antiplatelet effects of clopidogrel and/or aspirin, possibly leading to cardiovascular events. AIMS We aimed to investigate the association between PPI and clinical outcomes in patients treated with ticagrelor monotherapy or conventional antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS This is a subanalysis of the randomized GLOBAL LEADERS trial, comparing the experimental antiplatelet arm (23-month ticagrelor monotherapy following 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy [DAPT]) with the reference arm (12-month aspirin monotherapy following 12-month DAPT) after PCI. Patient-oriented composite endpoints (POCEs: all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization) and its components were assessed stratified by PPI use as a time-dependent covariate in patients with the experiment or reference antiplatelet arm. RESULTS Among 15,839 patients, 2115 patients (13.5%) experienced POCE at 2 years. In the reference arm, the use of PPIs was independently associated with POCE (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12-1.44) and its individual components, whereas it was not in the experimental arm (HR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.92-1.19; pinteraction  = 0.035). During the second-year follow-up, patients taking aspirin with PPIs had a significantly higher risk of POCE compared to those on aspirin without PPIs (HR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.27-1.94), whereas the risk did not differ significantly irrespective of PPI in ticagrelor monotherapy group (HR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.83-1.28; pinteraction  = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS In contrast to conventional antiplatelet strategy, there were no evidence suggesting the interaction between ticagrelor monotherapy and PPIs on increased cardiovascular events, which should be confirmed in further studies. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov

Impact of premature coronary artery disease on adverse event risk following first percutaneous coronary intervention

ObjectivesWe assessed differences in risk profile and 3-year outcome between patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for premature and non-premature coronary artery disease (CAD).BackgroundThe prevalence of CAD increases with age, yet some individuals develop obstructive CAD at younger age.MethodsAmong participants in four randomized all-comers PCI trials, without previous coronary revascularization or myocardial infarction (MI), we compared patients with premature (men <50 years; women <55 years) and non-premature CAD. Various clinical endpoints were assessed, including multivariate analyses.ResultsOf 6,171 patients, 887(14.4%) suffered from premature CAD. These patients had fewer risk factors than patients with non-premature CAD, but were more often smokers (60.7% vs. 26.4%) and overweight (76.2% vs. 69.8%). In addition, premature CAD patients presented more often with ST-segment elevation MI and underwent less often treatment of multiple vessels, and calcified or bifurcated lesions. Furthermore, premature CAD patients had a lower all-cause mortality risk (adj.HR:0.23, 95%-CI: 0.10–0.52; p < 0.001), but target vessel revascularization (adj.HR:1.63, 95%-CI: 1.18–2.26; p = 0.003) and definite stent thrombosis risks (adj.HR:2.24, 95%-CI: 1.06–4.72; p = 0.034) were higher. MACE rates showed no statistically significant difference (6.6% vs. 9.4%; adj.HR:0.86, 95%-CI: 0.65–1.16; p = 0.33).ConclusionsAbout one out of seven PCI patients was treated for premature CAD. These patients had less complex risk profiles than patients with non-premature CAD; yet, their risk of repeated revascularization and stent thrombosis was higher. As lifetime event risk of patients with premature CAD is known to be particularly high, further efforts should be made to improve modifiable risk factors such as smoking and overweight.Clinical Trial Registration[clinicaltrials.gov], TWENTE [NCT01066650]; DUTCH PEERS [NCT01331707]; BIO-RESORT [NCT01674803]; BIONYX [NCT02508714]

Benefit and Risks of Aspirin in Addition to Ticagrelor in Acute Coronary Syndromes:A Post Hoc Analysis of the Randomized GLOBAL LEADERS Trial

Key PointsQuestionWhat are the benefits and risks of continuing aspirin in addition to P2Y12 receptor inhibition with ticagrelor among patients with acute coronary syndrome between 1 month and 12 months after percutaneous coronary intervention? FindingsIn this nonprespecified, post hoc analysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS randomized clinical trial, beyond 1 month after percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndrome, aspirin was associated with increased bleeding risk and appeared not to add to the benefit of ticagrelor on ischemic events. MeaningThe findings of this hypothesis-generating analysis pave the way for further trials evaluating aspirin-free antiplatelet strategies after percutaneous coronary intervention. ImportanceThe role of aspirin as part of antiplatelet regimens in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) needs to be clarified in the context of newer potent P2Y12 antagonists. ObjectiveTo evaluate the benefit and risks of aspirin in addition to ticagrelor among patients with ACS beyond 1 month after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis is a nonprespecified, post hoc analysis of GLOBAL LEADERS, a randomized, open-label superiority trial comparing 2 antiplatelet treatment strategies after PCI. The trial included 130 secondary/tertiary care hospitals in different countries, with 15991 unselected patients with stable coronary artery disease or ACS undergoing PCI. Patients had outpatient visits at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after index procedure. InterventionsThe experimental group received aspirin plus ticagrelor for 1 month followed by 23-month ticagrelor monotherapy; the reference group received aspirin plus either clopidogrel (stable coronary artery disease) or ticagrelor (ACS) for 12 months, followed by 12-month aspirin monotherapy. In this analysis, we examined the clinical outcomes occurring between 31 days and 365 days after randomization, specifically in patients with ACS who, within this time frame, were assigned to receive either ticagrelor alone or ticagrelor and aspirin. Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was the composite of all-cause death or new Q-wave myocardial infarction. ResultsOf 15968 participants, there were 7487 patients with ACS enrolled; 3750 patients were assigned to the experimental group and 3737 patients to the reference group. Between 31 and 365 days after randomization, the primary outcome occurred in 55 patients (1.5%) in the experimental group and in 75 patients (2.0%) in the reference group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.51-1.03; P=.07); investigator-reported Bleeding Academic Research Consortium-defined bleeding type 3 or 5 occurred in 28 patients (0.8%) in the experimental group and in 54 patients (1.5%) in the reference arm (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33-0.81; P=.004). Conclusions and RelevanceBetween 1 month and 12 months after PCI in ACS, aspirin was associated with increased bleeding risk and appeared not to add to the benefit of ticagrelor on ischemic events. These findings should be interpreted as exploratory and hypothesis generating; however, they pave the way for further trials evaluating aspirin-free antiplatelet strategies after PCI. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01813435. This secondary analysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS randomized clinical trial evaluates the benefit and risks of aspirin in addition to ticagrelor among patients with acute coronary syndrome beyond 1 month after percutaneous coronary intervention

Rationale and design of a prospective substudy of clinical endpoint adjudication processes within an investigator-reported randomised controlled trial in patients with coronary artery disease: the GLOBAL LEADERS Adjudication Sub-StudY (GLASSY)

pragmatic and superiority randomised controlled trial designed to challenge the current treatment paradigm of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 12 months followed by aspirin monotherapy among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. By design, all study endpoints are investigator reported (IR) and not subject to formal adjudication by an independent Clinical Event Committee (CEC), which may introduce detection, reporting or ascertainment bias. Methods and analysis We designed the GLOBAL LEADERS Adjudication Sub-StudY (GLASSY) to prospectively implement, in a large sample of patients enrolled within the GLOBAL LEADERS trial (7585 of 15 991, 47.5%), an independent adjudication process of reported and unreported potential endpoints, using standardised CEC procedures, in order to assess whether 23-month ticagrelor monotherapy (90mg twice daily) after 1-month DAPT is non-inferior to a standard regimen of DAPT for 12 months followed by aspirin monotherapy for the primary efficacy endpoint of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke or urgent target vessel revascularisation and superior for the primary safety endpoint of type 3 or 5 bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium criteria. This study will comprehensively assess the comparative safety and efficacy of the two tested antithrombotic strategies on CEC-adjudicated ischaemic and bleeding endpoints and will provide insights into the role of a standardised CEC adjudication process on the interpretation of study findings by quantifying the level of concordance between IR-reported and CEC-adjudicated events. Ethics and dissemination GLASSY has been approved by local ethics committee of all study sites and/or by the central ethics committee for the country depending on country-specific regulations. In all cases, they deemed that it was not neces