Acute Decline in Renal Function, Inflammation, and Cardiovascular Risk after an Acute Coronary Syndrome

Background and objectives: Chronic kidney disease is associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular outcomes. The prognostic significance of worsening renal function has also been shown in various cohorts of cardiac disease; however, the predictors of worsening renal function and the contribution of inflammation remains to be established. Design, setting, participants, & measurements: Worsening renal function was defined as a 25% or more decrease in estimated GFR (eGFR) over a 1-mo period in patients after a non-ST or ST elevation acute coronary syndromes participating in the Aggrastat-to-Zocor Trial; this occurred in 5% of the 3795 participants. Results: A baseline C-reactive protein (CRP) in the fourth quartile was a significant predictor of developing worsening renal function (odds ratio, 2.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.49, 4.14). After adjusting for baseline CRP and eGFR, worsening renal function remained a strong multivariate predictor for the combined cardiovascular composite of CV death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure or stroke (hazard ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.1, 2.3). Conclusions: Patients with an early decline in renal function after an acute coronary syndrome are at a significant increased risk for recurrent cardiovascular events. CRP is an independent predictor for subsequent decline in renal function and reinforces the idea that inflammation may be related to the pathophysiology of progressive renal disease

Reduction in Total Cardiovascular Events With Ezetimibe/Simvastatin Post-Acute Coronary Syndrome The IMPROVE-IT Trial

AbstractBackgroundIntensive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol therapy with ezetimibe/simvastatin in IMPROVE-IT (IMProved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial) significantly reduced the first primary endpoint (PEP) in patients post-acute coronary syndrome (ACS) compared to placebo/simvastatin.ObjectivesThis analysis tested the hypothesis that total events, including those beyond the first event, would also be reduced with ezetimibe/simvastatin therapy.MethodsAll PEP events (cardiovascular [CV] death, myocardial infarction [MI], stroke, unstable angina [UA] leading to hospitalization, coronary revascularization ≥30 days post-randomization) during a median 6-year follow-up were analyzed in patients randomized to receive ezetimibe/simvastatin or placebo/simvastatin in IMPROVE-IT. Negative binomial regression was used for the primary analysis.ResultsAmong 18,144 patients, there were 9,545 total PEP events (56% were first events and 44% subsequent events). Total PEP events were significantly reduced by 9% with ezetimibe/simvastatin vs placebo/simvastatin (incidence-rate ratio [RR]: 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85 to 0.97; p = 0.007), as were the 3 pre-specified secondary composite endpoints and the exploratory composite endpoint of CV death, MI, or stroke (RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.81 to 0.96; p = 0.002). The reduction in total events was driven by decreases in total nonfatal MI (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.79 to 0.96; p = 0.004) and total NF stroke (RR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.65 to 0.93; p = 0.005).ConclusionsLipid-lowering therapy with ezetimibe plus simvastatin improved clinical outcomes. Reductions in total PEP events, driven by reductions in MI and stroke, more than doubled the number of events prevented compared with examining only the first event. These data support continuation of intensive combination lipid-lowering therapy after an initial CV event. (IMProved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial [IMPROVE-IT]; NCT00202878

Infusion of Reconstituted High-Density Lipoprotein, CSL112, in Patients With Atherosclerosis: Safety and Pharmacokinetic Results From a Phase 2a Randomized Clinical Trial

Background CSL112 is a new formulation of human apolipoprotein A‐I (apoA‐I) being developed to reduce cardiovascular events following acute coronary syndrome. This phase 2a, randomized, double‐blind, multicenter, dose‐ranging trial represents the first clinical investigation to assess the safety and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of a CSL112 infusion among patients with stable atherosclerotic disease. Methods and Results Patients were randomized to single ascending doses of CSL112 (1.7, 3.4, or 6.8 g) or placebo, administered over a 2‐hour period. Primary safety assessments consisted of alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase elevations \u3e3× upper limits of normal and study drug–related adverse events. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic assessments included apoA‐I plasma concentration and measures of the ability of serum to promote cholesterol efflux from cells ex vivo. Of 45 patients randomized, 7, 12, and 14 received 1.7‐, 3.4‐, and 6.8‐g CSL112, respectively, and 11 received placebo. There were no clinically significant elevations (\u3e3× upper limit of normal) in alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase. Adverse events were nonserious and mild and occurred in 5 (71%), 5 (41%), and 6 (43%) patients in the CSL112 1.7‐, 3.4‐, and 6.8‐g groups, respectively, compared with 3 (27%) placebo patients. The imbalance in adverse events was attributable to vessel puncture/infusion‐site bruising. CSL112 resulted in rapid (Tmax≈2 hours) and dose‐dependent increases in apoA‐I (145% increase in the 6.8‐g group) and total cholesterol efflux (up to 3.1‐fold higher than placebo) (P\u3c0.001). Conclusions CSL112 infusion was well tolerated in patients with stable atherosclerotic disease. CSL112 immediately raised apoA‐I levels and caused a rapid and marked increase in the capacity of serum to efflux cholesterol. This potential novel approach for the treatment of atherosclerosis warrants further investigation. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01499420

Competing Risks of Cardiovascular Versus Noncardiovascular Death During Long‐Term Follow‐Up After Acute Coronary Syndromes

Background: Understanding the relative risk of cardiovascular versus noncardiovascular death is important for designing clinical trials. These risks may differ depending on patient age, sex, and type of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods and Results: IMPROVE‐IT (Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial) was a randomized controlled trial of simvastatin plus either ezetimibe or placebo following stabilized ACS. Cause of death was adjudicated by an independent committee. We compared the cumulative incidence of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular death for patients with unstable angina/non‐ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI) and ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), in those <65 and ≥65 years old, and males and females, over 7 years of follow‐up. Of 18 131 patients, the presenting event was STEMI for 5190 (29%) and UA/NSTEMI for 12 941 (71%); 10 173 (56%) patients were <65 years old and 7971 (44%) were ≥65 years old at presentation. UA/NSTEMI patients were older than STEMI patients, with more cardiovascular and noncardiovascular risk factors. In STEMI patients, the cumulative incidence of cardiovascular death was higher for ∼4 years following the index event, after which noncardiovascular death predominated. In UA/NSTEMI patients, the cumulative incidence of cardiovascular death remained higher than noncardiovascular death over the full follow‐up period. Patients ≥65 years old and <65 years old had a higher incidence of cardiovascular death than noncardiovascular death over the entirety of follow‐up. Female patients had a higher incidence of cardiovascular death than noncardiovascular death for ∼6 years following the index event; male patients had a higher incidence of cardiovascular death than noncardiovascular death over the entirety of follow‐up. Conclusions: Among post‐ACS patients enrolled in a long‐term clinical trial, the relative incidence of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular death differed based on type of ACS presentation and sex, but not age. These findings further delineate long‐term prognosis after ACS and should inform the design of future cardiovascular outcomes trials

Efficacy and safety of statin therapy in older people: a meta-analysis of individual participant data from 28 randomised controlled trials

Background: Statin therapy has been shown to reduce major vascular events and vascular mortality in a wide range of individuals, but there is uncertainty about its efficacy and safety among older people. We undertook a meta-analysis of data from all large statin trials to compare the effects of statin therapy at different ages. Methods: In this meta-analysis, randomised trials of statin therapy were eligible if they aimed to recruit at least 1000 participants with a scheduled treatment duration of at least 2 years. We analysed individual participant data from 22 trials (n=134 537) and detailed summary data from one trial (n=12 705) of statin therapy versus control, plus individual participant data from five trials of more intensive versus less intensive statin therapy (n=39 612). We subdivided participants into six age groups (55 years or younger, 56–60 years, 61–65 years, 66–70 years, 71–75 years, and older than 75 years). We estimated effects on major vascular events (ie, major coronary events, strokes, and coronary revascularisations), cause-specific mortality, and cancer incidence as the rate ratio (RR) per 1·0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol. We compared proportional risk reductions in different age subgroups by use of standard χ2 tests for heterogeneity when there were two groups, or trend when there were more than two groups. Findings: 14 483 (8%) of 186 854 participants in the 28 trials were older than 75 years at randomisation, and the median follow-up duration was 4·9 years. Overall, statin therapy or a more intensive statin regimen produced a 21% (RR 0·79, 95% CI 0·77–0·81) proportional reduction in major vascular events per 1·0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol. We observed a significant reduction in major vascular events in all age groups. Although proportional reductions in major vascular events diminished slightly with age, this trend was not statistically significant (ptrend=0·06). Overall, statin or more intensive therapy yielded a 24% (RR 0·76, 95% CI 0·73–0·79) proportional reduction in major coronary events per 1·0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol, and with increasing age, we observed a trend towards smaller proportional risk reductions in major coronary events (ptrend=0·009). We observed a 25% (RR 0·75, 95% CI 0·73–0·78) proportional reduction in the risk of coronary revascularisation procedures with statin therapy or a more intensive statin regimen per 1·0 mmol/L lower LDL cholesterol, which did not differ significantly across age groups (ptrend=0·6). Similarly, the proportional reductions in stroke of any type (RR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·89) did not differ significantly across age groups (ptrend=0·7). After exclusion of four trials which enrolled only patients with heart failure or undergoing renal dialysis (among whom statin therapy has not been shown to be effective), the trend to smaller proportional risk reductions with increasing age persisted for major coronary events (ptrend=0·01), and remained non-significant for major vascular events (ptrend=0·3). The proportional reduction in major vascular events was similar, irrespective of age, among patients with pre-existing vascular disease (ptrend=0·2), but appeared smaller among older than among younger individuals not known to have vascular disease (ptrend=0·05). We found a 12% (RR 0·88, 95% CI 0·85–0·91) proportional reduction in vascular mortality per 1·0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol, with a trend towards smaller proportional reductions with older age (ptrend=0·004), but this trend did not persist after exclusion of the heart failure or dialysis trials (ptrend=0·2). Statin therapy had no effect at any age on non-vascular mortality, cancer death, or cancer incidence. Interpretation: Statin therapy produces significant reductions in major vascular events irrespective of age, but there is less direct evidence of benefit among patients older than 75 years who do not already have evidence of occlusive vascular disease. This limitation is now being addressed by further trials. Funding: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, UK Medical Research Council, and British Heart Foundation