Effects of Anacetrapib in Patients with Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease

BACKGROUND: Patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease remain at high risk for cardiovascular events despite effective statin-based treatment of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. The inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) by anacetrapib reduces LDL cholesterol levels and increases high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. However, trials of other CETP inhibitors have shown neutral or adverse effects on cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 30,449 adults with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive atorvastatin therapy and who had a mean LDL cholesterol level of 61 mg per deciliter (1.58 mmol per liter), a mean non-HDL cholesterol level of 92 mg per deciliter (2.38 mmol per liter), and a mean HDL cholesterol level of 40 mg per deciliter (1.03 mmol per liter). The patients were assigned to receive either 100 mg of anacetrapib once daily (15,225 patients) or matching placebo (15,224 patients). The primary outcome was the first major coronary event, a composite of coronary death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization. RESULTS: During the median follow-up period of 4.1 years, the primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer patients in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (1640 of 15,225 patients [10.8%] vs. 1803 of 15,224 patients [11.8%]; rate ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.85 to 0.97; P=0.004). The relative difference in risk was similar across multiple prespecified subgroups. At the trial midpoint, the mean level of HDL cholesterol was higher by 43 mg per deciliter (1.12 mmol per liter) in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (a relative difference of 104%), and the mean level of non-HDL cholesterol was lower by 17 mg per deciliter (0.44 mmol per liter), a relative difference of -18%. There were no significant between-group differences in the risk of death, cancer, or other serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive statin therapy, the use of anacetrapib resulted in a lower incidence of major coronary events than the use of placebo. (Funded by Merck and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN48678192 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01252953 ; and EudraCT number, 2010-023467-18 .)

Predicting atrial fibrillation recurrence with circulating inflammatory markers in patients in sinus rhythm at high risk for atrial fibrillation : data from the GISSI atrial fibrillation trial

Background: Inflammation may play a significant role in the pathogenesis of atrial fibrillation (AF). Objectives: To examine the roles of three systemic inflammatory markers in predicting recurrent AF. Methods: The association between the plasma concentrations of high-sensitivity C reactive protein (hsCRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6) and pentraxin-3 (PTX3) with echocardiographic parameters and with the time to first recurrence of AF was tested in 382 patients with a history of AF but in sinus rhythm at randomisation, enrolled in the GISSI-AF biohumoral study. Results: Baseline PTX3 was related to left atrial, but not to left ventricular chamber volume. During one year of follow-up, 204 patients (53.1%) had a recurrent AF. There were no significant differences in baseline median [Q1-Q3] plasma concentrations of IL-6, hsCRP and PTX3 among patients with (2.11 [1.47-3.74] pg/ml, 3.30 [1.40-6.80] mg/l and 4.66 [3.27-6.97] ng/ml, respectively) or without recurrent AF (2.09 [1.37-2.90] pg/ml, p=0.182; 3.00 [1.10-6.20] mg/l, p=0.333; 5.09 [3.22-7.98] ng/ml, p=0.637). At 6 and 12 months follow-up, AF patients had significantly higher concentrations of IL-6 and PTX3 than those in sinus rhythm, and those with most recent episodes of AF had higher hsCRP. Baseline levels of IL-6, hsCRP or PTX3 were not significantly associated with a higher risk of recurrence of AF. Conclusion: In patients with a history of AF, but without significant left ventricular dysfunction or heart failure, inflammatory biomarkers may be raised but are, at best, weak predictors of the risk for first recurrence of AF

Predicting atrial fibrillation recurrence with circulating inflammatory markers in patients in sinus rhythm at high risk for atrial fibrillation: data from the GISSI atrial fibrillation trial.

Background Inflammation may play a significant role in the pathogenesis of atrial fibrillation (AF). Objectives To examine the roles of three systemic inflammatory markers in predicting recurrent AF. Methods The association between the plasma concentrations of high-sensitivity C reactive protein (hsCRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6) and pentraxin-3 (PTX3) with echocardiographic parameters and with the time to first recurrence of AF was tested in 382 patients with a history of AF but in sinus rhythm at randomisation, enrolled in the GISSI-AF biohumoral study. Results Baseline PTX3 was related to left atrial, but not to left ventricular chamber volume. During one year of follow-up, 204 patients (53.1%) had a recurrent AF. There were no significant differences in baseline median [Q1eQ3] plasma concentrations of IL-6, hsCRP and PTX3 among patients with (2.11 [1.47e3.74] pg/ml, 3.30 [1.40e6.80] mg/l and 4.66 [3.27e6.97] ng/ml, respectively) or without recurrent AF (2.09 [1.37e2.90] pg/ml, p\ubc0.182; 3.00 [1.10e6.20] mg/l, p\ubc0.333; 5.09 [3.22e7.98] ng/ml, p\ubc0.637). At 6 and 12 months follow-up, AF patients had significantly higher concentrations of IL-6 and PTX3 than those in sinus rhythm, and those with most recent episodes of AF had higher hsCRP. Baseline levels of IL-6, hsCRP or PTX3 were not significantly associated with a higher risk of recurrence of AF. Conclusion In patients with a history of AF, but without significant left ventricular dysfunction or heart failure, inflammatory biomarkers may be raised but are, at best, weak predictors of the risk for first recurrence of AF

Randomized study of traditional versus aggressive systolic blood pressure control (Cardio-Sis): rationale, design and characteristics of the study population. Cardio-Sis Study Group

The hypothesis that a therapeutic strategy aimed at lowering systolic blood pressure (SBP) below 130 mm Hg is superior to a conventional strategy targeted at below 140 mm Hg in hypertensive subjects has never been tested in randomized intervention studies. The Studio Italiano Sugli Effetti Cardiovascolari del Controllo della Pressione Arteriosa Sistolica (Cardio-Sis) is a multi-centre study in non-diabetic, treated hypertensive subjects aged >55 years with uncontrolled SBP (>or=150 mm Hg) and at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00421863). Subjects are randomized to an SBP goal <140 mm Hg (conventional) or <130 mm Hg (aggressive), independently of baseline and achieved diastolic blood pressure (BP). Anti-hypertensive drugs dispensed for the study are restricted to a list of specific drugs. The primary outcome of the study is based on regression of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) using electrocardiography (ECG). The hypothesis is that subjects without LVH regression or with new development of LVH 2 years after randomization are 19% with conventional strategy and 12% with aggressive strategy. Secondary outcome is a composite pool of pre-specified fatal and non-fatal events. Randomization of 1111 subjects was completed by February 2007. Mean age of subjects (41% men) at entry was 67 years. BP was 158/87 mm Hg (systolic/diastolic) and prevalence of LVH by ECG was 21.0%. Cardio-Sis is the first randomized study specifically designed to compare two different SBP goals. Results will be broadly applicable to subjects with uncontrolled SBP under anti-hypertensive treatment

Prognostic impact of diabetes and prediabetes on survival outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure: a post-hoc analysis of the GISSI-HF (Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nella Insufficienza Cardiaca-Heart Failure) trial

Background-The independent prognostic impact of diabetes mellitus (DM) and prediabetes mellitus (pre-DM) on survival outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure has been investigated in observational registries and randomized, clinical trials, but the results have been often inconclusive or conflicting. We examined the independent prognostic impact of DM and pre-DM on survival outcomes in the GISSI-HF (Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nella Insufficienza Cardiaca-Heart Failure) trial.Methods and Results-We assessed the risk of all-cause death and the composite of all-cause death or cardiovascular hospitalization over a median follow-up period of 3.9 years among the 6935 chronic heart failure participants of the GISSI-HF trial, who were stratified by presence of DM (n= 2852), pre-DM (n= 2013), and non-DM (n= 2070) at baseline. Compared with non-DM patients, those with DM had remarkably higher incidence rates of all-cause death (34.5% versus 24.6%) and the composite end point (63.6% versus 54.7%). Conversely, both event rates were similar between non-DM patients and those with pre-DM. Cox regression analysis showed that DM, but not pre-DM, was associated with an increased risk of all-cause death (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.28-1.60) and of the composite end point (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.13-1.32), independently of established risk factors. In the DM subgroup, higher hemoglobin A1c was also independently associated with increased risk of both study outcomes (all-cause death: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02-1.43; and composite end point: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01-1.29, respectively).Conclusions-Presence of DM was independently associated with poor long-term survival outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure

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