Rationale and Design of the Future Optimal Research and Care Evaluation in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome (FORCE-ACS) Registry: Towards "Personalized Medicine" in Daily Clinical Practice

Diagnostic and treatment strategies for acute coronary syndrome have improved dramatically over the past few decades, but mortality and recurrent myocardial infarction rates remain high. An aging population with increasing co-morbidities heralds new clinical challenges. Therefore, in order to evaluate and improve current treatment strategies, detailed information on clinical presentation, treatment and follow-up in real-world patients is needed. The Future Optimal Research and Care Evaluation in patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome (FORCE-ACS) registry (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03823547) is a multi-center, prospective real-world registry of patients admitted with (suspected) acute coronary syndrome. Both non-interventional and interventional cardiac centers in different regions of the Netherlands are currently participating. Patients are treated according to local protocols, enabling the evaluation of different diagnostic and treatment strategies used in daily practice. Data collection is performed using electronic medical records and quality-of-life questionnaires, which are sent 1, 12, 24 and 36 months after initial admission. Major end points are all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, revascularization and all bleeding requiring medical attention. Invasive therapy, antithrombotic therapy including patient-tailored strategies, such as the use of risk scores, pharmacogenetic guided antiplatelet therapy and patient reported outcome measures are monitored. The FORCE-ACS registry provides insight into numerous aspects of the (quality of) care for acute coronary syndrome patients

Real-World Implementation of a Genotype-Guided P2Y12 Inhibitor De-Escalation Strategy in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients

Background: CYP2C19 genotype–guided de-escalation from ticagrelor or prasugrel to clopidogrel may optimize the balance between ischemic and bleeding risk in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Objectives: This study sought to compare bleeding and ischemic event rates in genotyped patients vs standard care. Methods: Since 2015, ACS patients in the multicenter FORCE-ACS (Future Optimal Research and Care Evaluation in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome) registry received standard dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). Since 2021, genotype-guided P2Y12 inhibitor de-escalation was recommended at a single center, switching noncarriers of the loss-of-function allele CYP2C19∗3 or CYP2C19∗2 from ticagrelor or prasugrel to clopidogrel, whereas loss-of-function carriers remained on ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary ischemic endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and the primary bleeding endpoint, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, were compared between a genotyped cohort and a cohort treated with standard DAPT after 1 year. Results: Among 5,321 enrolled ACS patients, 406 underwent genotyping compared with 4,915 nongenotyped ACS patients on standard DAPT. In the genotyped cohort, 65.3% (n = 265) were noncarriers, 88.7% (n = 235) of whom were switched to clopidogrel. The primary ischemic endpoint occurred in 5.2% (n = 21) of patients in the genotyped cohort compared to 6.9% (n = 337) in the standard care cohort (adjusted HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.53-1.28). The primary bleeding rate was significantly lower in the genotyped cohort compared to the standard care cohort (4.7% vs 9.8%; adjusted HR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.30-0.76). Conclusions: The implementation of a CYP2C19 genotype–guided P2Y12 inhibitor de-escalation strategy in a real-world ACS population resulted in lower bleeding rates without an increase in ischemic events compared to a standard DAPT regimen

Impact of recurrent ischaemic and bleeding events on quality of life in patients with acute coronary syndrome: Insights from the FORCE-ACS registry

Objective Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remain at high risk for recurrent ischaemic and bleeding events during follow-up. Our study aimed to quantify and compare the impact of these adverse events on quality of life (QoL).Methods Data from patients with ACS prospectively enrolled in the FORCE-ACS registry between January 2015 and December 2019 were used for this study. The primary ischaemic and bleeding events of interest were hospital readmission for ACS and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2 or 3 bleeding during 12 months follow-up. QoL was measured using the EQ-5D Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score and the 12-item Short Form Survey version 2 derived Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Health Component Summary (MCS) scores at 12 months follow-up.Results In total, 3339 patients (mean age 66.8 years, 27.9% women) were included. During follow-up, ischaemic events occurred in 202 patients (6.0%) and bleeding events in 565 patients (16.9%). After adjustment for demographic and clinical characteristics, ischaemic events remained independently associated with lower QoL regardless of metric used. Bleeding was also independently associated with lower EQ-5D VAS and PCS scores, but not with a lower MCS score. The QoL decrement associated with ischaemic events was numerically larger than the decrement associated with bleeding.Conclusions Ischaemic and bleeding events remain prevalent and are independently associated with lower QoL at 12 months follow-up in patients previously admitted for ACS. The incidence and impact of these adverse events should be considered when balancing individual ischaemic and bleeding risks

External validation of the GRACE risk score and the risk-treatment paradox in patients with acute coronary syndrome

Objectives To validate the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk score and examine the extent and impact of the risk-treatment paradox in contemporary patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods Data from 5015 patients with ACS enrolled in the FORCE-ACS registry between January 2015 and December 2019 were used for model validation. The performance of the GRACE risk score for predicting in-hospital and 1-year mortality was evaluated based on indices of model discrimination and calibration. Differences in the delivery of guideline-recommended care among patients who survived hospitalisation (n=4911) per GRACE risk stratum were assessed and the association with postdischarge mortality was examined. Results Discriminative power of the GRACE risk score was good for predicting in-hospital (c-statistic: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.83 to 0.90) and 1-year mortality (c-statistic: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.79 to 0.84). However, the GRACE risk score overestimated the absolute in-hospital and 1-year mortality risk (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test p<0.01). Intermediate-risk and high-risk patients were 12% and 29% less likely to receive optimal guideline-recommended care compared with low-risk patients, respectively. Optimal guideline-recommended care was associated with lower mortality in intermediate- and high-risk patients. Conclusions The GRACE risk score identified patients at higher risk for in-hospital and 1-year mortality, but overestimated absolute risk levels in contemporary patients. Optimal guideline-recommended care was associated with lower mortality in intermediate-risk and high-risk patients, but was less likely to be delivered with increasing mortality risk

Rationale and Design of the Future Optimal Research and Care Evaluation in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome (FORCE-ACS) Registry: Towards “Personalized Medicine” in Daily Clinical Practice

Diagnostic and treatment strategies for acute coronary syndrome have improved dramatically over the past few decades, but mortality and recurrent myocardial infarction rates remain high. An aging population with increasing co-morbidities heralds new clinical challenges. Therefore, in order to evaluate and improve current treatment strategies, detailed information on clinical presentation, treatment and follow-up in real-world patients is needed. The Future Optimal Research and Care Evaluation in patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome (FORCE-ACS) registry (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03823547) is a multi-center, prospective real-world registry of patients admitted with (suspected) acute coronary syndrome. Both non-interventional and interventional cardiac centers in different regions of the Netherlands are currently participating. Patients are treated according to local protocols, enabling the evaluation of different diagnostic and treatment strategies used in daily practice. Data collection is performed using electronic medical records and quality-of-life questionnaires, which are sent 1, 12, 24 and 36 months after initial admission. Major end points are all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, revascularization and all bleeding requiring medical attention. Invasive therapy, antithrombotic therapy including patient-tailored strategies, such as the use of risk scores, pharmacogenetic guided antiplatelet therapy and patient reported outcome measures are monitored. The FORCE-ACS registry provides insight into numerous aspects of the (quality of) care for acute coronary syndrome patients

Rationale and design of the future optimal research and care evaluation in patients with acute coronary syndrome (Force-acs) registry: Towards “personalized medicine” in daily clinical practice

Diagnostic and treatment strategies for acute coronary syndrome have improved dramatically over the past few decades, but mortality and recurrent myocardial infarction rates remain high. An aging population with increasing co-morbidities heralds new clinical challenges. Therefore, in order to evaluate and improve current treatment strategies, detailed information on clinical presentation, treatment and follow-up in real-world patients is needed. The Future Optimal Research and Care Evaluation in patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome (FORCE-ACS) registry (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03823547) is a multi-center, prospective real-world registry of patients admitted with (suspected) acute coronary syndrome. Both non-interventional and interventional cardiac centers in different regions of the Netherlands are currently participating. Patients are treated according to local protocols, enabling the evaluation of different diagnostic and treatment strategies used in daily practice. Data collection is performed using electronic medical records and quality-of-life questionnaires, which are sent 1, 12, 24 and 36 months after initial admission. Major end points are all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, revascularization and all bleeding requiring medical attention. Invasive therapy, antithrombotic therapy including patient-tailored strategies, such as the use of risk scores, pharmacogenetic guided antiplatelet therapy and patient reported outcome measures are monitored. The FORCE-ACS registry provides insight into numerous aspects of the (quality of) care for acute coronary syndrome patients

Real-World Implementation of a Genotype-Guided P2Y12 Inhibitor De-Escalation Strategy in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients

Background: CYP2C19 genotype–guided de-escalation from ticagrelor or prasugrel to clopidogrel may optimize the balance between ischemic and bleeding risk in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Objectives: This study sought to compare bleeding and ischemic event rates in genotyped patients vs standard care. Methods: Since 2015, ACS patients in the multicenter FORCE-ACS (Future Optimal Research and Care Evaluation in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome) registry received standard dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). Since 2021, genotype-guided P2Y 12 inhibitor de-escalation was recommended at a single center, switching noncarriers of the loss-of-function allele CYP2C19∗3 or CYP2C19∗2 from ticagrelor or prasugrel to clopidogrel, whereas loss-of-function carriers remained on ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary ischemic endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and the primary bleeding endpoint, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, were compared between a genotyped cohort and a cohort treated with standard DAPT after 1 year. Results: Among 5,321 enrolled ACS patients, 406 underwent genotyping compared with 4,915 nongenotyped ACS patients on standard DAPT. In the genotyped cohort, 65.3% (n = 265) were noncarriers, 88.7% (n = 235) of whom were switched to clopidogrel. The primary ischemic endpoint occurred in 5.2% (n = 21) of patients in the genotyped cohort compared to 6.9% (n = 337) in the standard care cohort (adjusted HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.53-1.28). The primary bleeding rate was significantly lower in the genotyped cohort compared to the standard care cohort (4.7% vs 9.8%; adjusted HR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.30-0.76). Conclusions: The implementation of a CYP2C19 genotype–guided P2Y 12 inhibitor de-escalation strategy in a real-world ACS population resulted in lower bleeding rates without an increase in ischemic events compared to a standard DAPT regimen.</p