Vorapaxar in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus and Previous Myocardial Infarction: Findings From the Thrombin Receptor Antagonist in Secondary Prevention of Atherothrombotic Ischemic Events-TIMI 50 Trial

Background— Vorapaxar reduces cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke in patients with previous MI while increasing bleeding. Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are at high risk of recurrent thrombotic events despite standard therapy and may derive particular benefit from antithrombotic therapies. The Thrombin Receptor Antagonist in Secondary Prevention of Atherothrombotic Ischemic Events-TIMI 50 trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of vorapaxar in patients with stable atherosclerosis. Methods and Results— We examined the efficacy of vorapaxar in patients with and without DM who qualified for the trial with a previous MI. Because vorapaxar is contraindicated in patients with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack, the analysis (n=16 896) excluded such patients. The primary end point of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke occurred more frequently in patients with DM than in patients without DM (rates in placebo group: 14.3% versus 7.6%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.47; P<0.001). In patients with DM (n=3623), vorapaxar significantly reduced the primary end point (11.4% versus 14.3%; hazard ratio, 0.73 [95% confidence interval, 0.60–0.89]; P=0.002) with a number needed to treat to avoid 1 major cardiovascular event of 29. The incidence of moderate/severe bleeding was increased with vorapaxar in patients with DM (4.4% versus 2.6%; hazard ratio, 1.60 [95% confidence interval, 1.07–2.40]). However, net clinical outcome integrating these 2 end points (efficacy and safety) was improved with vorapaxar (hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% confidence interval, 0.67–0.93]). Conclusions— In patients with previous MI and DM, the addition of vorapaxar to standard therapy significantly reduced the risk of major vascular events with greater potential for absolute benefit in this group at high risk of recurrent ischemic events. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00526474

Efficacy and Safety of Vorapaxar as Approved for Clinical Use in the United States

Background: Vorapaxar is a protease‐activated receptor‐1 antagonist approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the reduction of thrombotic cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with a history of myocardial infarction (MI) and peripheral artery disease (PAD), without a previous stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). Methods and Results: We examined the efficacy and safety of vorapaxar in the intended use population, considering 20 170 patients randomized in the multinational, double‐blinded, placebo‐controlled TRA 2°P‐TIMI 50 trial. Of these, 16 897 qualified with a history of MI in the prior 2 weeks to 1 year and 3273 with PAD. At baseline 97% of the patients were treated with aspirin, 71% with a thienopyridine, and 93% a statin. At 3 years, the endpoint of CV death, MI, or stroke was significantly reduced with vorapaxar compared with placebo (7.9% versus 9.5%, HR, 0.80; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.89; P<0.001). Vorapaxar also significantly reduced the composite of CV death, MI, stroke, and urgent coronary revascularization (10.1% versus 11.8%, HR, 0.83; 95% CI 0.76 to 0.90; P<0.001), as well as the rate of CV death or MI (P<0.001). The safety endpoint of GUSTO moderate or severe bleeding, was increased in the vorapaxar group (3.7 versus 2.4, HR, 1.55; 95% CI 1.30 to 1.86, P<0.001). Intracranial bleeding (ICH) was 0.6% versus 0.4%, P=0.10 with vorapaxar versus placebo, with fatal bleeding 0.2% versus 0.2%; P=0.70. Conclusions: In patients with prior MI or PAD who have not had a previous stroke or TIA, vorapaxar added to standard therapy is effective for long‐term secondary prevention of thrombotic CV events, while increasing moderate or severe bleeding. Clinical Trial Registration URL: clinicaltrials.gov Unique Identifier: NCT00526474

Renal Function and Outcomes With Dabigatran Dual Antithrombotic Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation Patients After PCI

OBJECTIVES The study sought to evaluate the effect of dabigatran dual therapy versus warfarin triple therapy across categories of renal function in the RE-DUAL PCI (Randomized Evaluation of Dual Antithrombotic Therapy with Dabigatran versus Triple Therapy with Warfarin in Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) trial

Long‐Term Ticagrelor in Patients With Prior Coronary Stenting in the PEGASUS‐TIMI 54 Trial

International audienceBackground Coronary stent type and risk of stent thrombosis remain important factors affecting recommended duration of dual antiplatelet therapy. We investigated the efficacy and safety of long‐term ticagrelor in patients with prior coronary stenting enrolled in the PEGASUS‐TIMI 54 (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin–Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 54) trial. Methods and Results Patients in PEGASUS‐TIMI 54 had a myocardial infarction 1 to 3 year prior and were randomized 1:1:1 to ticagrelor 60 or 90 mg BID or placebo. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (major adverse cardiovascular events). Stent thrombosis was prospectively adjudicated (Academic Research Consortium definition). Baseline characteristics were compared by most recent stent type (bare metal versus drug‐eluting stent and first‐ versus later‐generation drug‐eluting stent). Treatment arms were compared using Cox proportional hazards models. Of 21 162 patients randomized, 80% (n=16 891) had prior coronary stenting. Following randomization, myocardial infarction was the most frequent ischemic event in patients with prior stenting in the placebo arm, occurring in 5.2% of patients (Type 1: 4.1%), followed by cardiovascular death (2.3%), stroke (1.7%), and stent thrombosis (0.9%). Ticagrelor pooled reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (7.0% versus 8.0%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75–96) regardless of stent type (bare metal stent versus drug‐eluting stent: p interaction =0.767; first versus later generation: p interaction =0.940). The rate of any stent thrombosis was numerically lower with ticagrelor pooled (0.7% versus 0.9%; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.50–1.05) and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction major bleeding was increased (HR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.90–3.68). Conclusions Long‐term ticagrelor reduces major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with prior myocardial infarction and coronary stenting regardless of stent type, with the benefit driven predominantly by reduction in de novo events. Nonfatal major bleeding is increased with ticagrelor. Registration Information clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT01225562

Dual antithrombotic therapy with dabigatran in patients with atrial fibrillation after percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a post hoc analysis of the randomised RE-DUAL PCI trial

Background: Little is known about the optimal antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)

The CSL112-2001 trial: Safety and tolerability of multiple doses of CSL112 (apolipoprotein A-I [human]), an intravenous formulation of plasma-derived apolipoprotein A-I, among subjects with moderate renal impairment after acute myocardial infarction

International audienceBACKGROUND:CSL112 (apolipoprotein A-I [human]) is a plasma-derived apolipoprotein A-I developed for early reduction of cardiovascular risk following an acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The safety of CSL112 among AMI subjects with moderate, stage 3 chronic kidney disease (CKD) is unknown.METHODS:CSL112_2001, a multicenter, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized phase 2 trial, enrolled patients with moderate CKD within 7 days following AMI. Enrollment was stratified on the basis of estimated glomerular filtration rate and presence of diabetes requiring treatment. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive 4 weekly infusions of CSL112 6 g or placebo. The co-primary safety end points were renal serious adverse events (SAEs) and acute kidney injury, defined as an increase ≥26.5 μmol/L in baseline serum creatinine for more than 24 hours, during the treatment period.RESULTS:A total of 83 patients were randomized (55 CSL112 vs 28 placebo). No increase in renal SAEs was observed in the CSL112 group compared with placebo (CSL112 = 1 [1.9%], placebo = 4 [14.3%]). Similarly, no increase in acute kidney injury events was observed (CSL112 = 2 [4.0%], placebo = 4 [14.3%]). Rates of other SAEs were similar between groups. CSL112 administration resulted in increases in ApoA-I and cholesterol efflux similar to those observed in patients with AMI and normal renal function or stage 2 CKD enrolled in the ApoA-I Event Reducing in Ischemic Syndromes I trial.CONCLUSIONS:These results demonstrate the acceptable safety of the 6-g dose of CSL112 among AMI subjects with moderate stage 3 CKD and support inclusion of these patients in a phase 3 cardiovascular outcomes trial powered to assess efficacy

Final 3-Year Outcomes of MiStent Biodegradable Polymer Crystalline Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Xience Permanent Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent: Insights From the DESSOLVE III All-Comers Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND: Numerous randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the superiority of thin-strut biodegradable polymer second-generation drug-eluting stent to the first-generation drug-eluting stent and the noninferiority to the thin-strut second-generation permanent polymer drug-eluting stent. Data on long-term clinical outcomes with a novel ultrathin drug-eluting stent, to date, are limited. METHODS: The DESSOLVE III trial (Multicenter Randomized Study of the MiStent Sirolimus Eluting Absorbable Polymer Stent System for Revascularization of Coronary Arteries; n=1398) is a prospective, multicenter, single-blinded, all-comers, randomized controlled trial (NCT02385279), allocating in a 1:1 ratio to either ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer MiStent sirolimus-eluting stent or to thin-strut permanent polymer Xience everolimus-eluting stent. The primary end point was device-oriented composite end point, defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularization. The secondary end point was patient-oriented composite end point, defined as the composite of all-cause mortality, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization. RESULTS: At 3 years, follow-up data were available in 1381 patients (98.8%). The primary end point of device-oriented composite end point occurred in 10.5% for MiStent sirolimus-eluting stent and in 11.5% for Xience everolimus-eluting stent (P=0.55). Rates of cardiac death (3.9% versus 3.8%; P=0.88), target vessel myocardial infarction (3.2% versus 2.5%; P=0.43), and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (5.2% versus 6.5%; P=0.30) did not differ significantly between the 2 devices. The rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis was infrequent and similar between the 2 arms (1.2% versus 1.5%; P=0.64). The 90-day landmark analysis showed no significant difference in device-oriented composite end point between the 2 groups after polymer degradation of MiStent. The risk of patient-oriented composite end point was comparable between the 2 groups (22.7% versus 22.9%; P=0.34). CONCLUSIONS: In the DESSOLVE III trial, early safety and efficacy with MiStent sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer-coated stent are confirmed at a longer term follow-up when compared with Xience everolimus-eluting permanent polymer-coated stent in a large all-comers population. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02385279

Ischaemic risk and efficacy of ticagrelor in relation to time from P2Y(12) inhibitor withdrawal in patients with prior myocardial infarction: insights from PEGASUS-TIMI 54

AIMS: Ticagrelor reduced major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) by 15-16% in patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI) in PEGASUS-TIMI 54. We hypothesized that patients who recently discontinued P2Y12 inhibition, even years after MI, may be at particular risk of MACE and may derive particular benefit from continuation or reinitiation of therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients in PEGASUS-TIMI 54 were categorized by time from last P2Y12 inhibitor (days: ≤30, >30-360, >360). The risk of MACE and the efficacy of ticagrelor were compared across categories. In the placebo arm, patients who more recently stopped P2Y12 inhibitor therapy had a greater number of risk factors but still had a higher risk of MACE after multivariable adjustment [≤30 days, hazard ratio (HR)adj 1.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12-1.93, P = 0.0051; 30 days-1 year, HRadj 1.28, 95% CI 0.98-1.67, P = 0.073] compared with those who stopped >1 year prior (P-trend = 0.0097). The benefit of ticagrelor depended on the time from last dose, with HRs (95% CI) for ticagrelor (pooled doses) vs. placebo of 0.73 (0.61-0.87), 0.86 (0.71-1.04), and 1.01 (0.80-1.27), respectively, by category (P-trend for interaction < 0.001). The benefit in those ≤30 days of stopping was similar regardless of time from MI (<2 years, HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60-0.89 vs. ≥2 years, HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.50-1.00). CONCLUSION: The benefit of ticagrelor for long-term secondary prevention in patients with prior MI and at least one additional risk factor appeared more marked in patients continuing on or re-starting after only a brief interruption of P2Y12 inhibition, when compared with patients who had proved themselves stable more than 2 years from their MI and off P2Y12 inhibitor therapy for more than a year. The increase in bleeding events with ticagrelor was similar regardless of this time interval. For clinicians considering a strategy of prolonged P2Y12 inhibitor therapy in high-risk patients, these data suggest greater benefit in the continuation of such therapy without interruption after MI, rather than re-initiating such therapy in patients who have remained stable for an extended period. Future analyses may help to clarify further the profile of post-MI patients most likely to benefit from uninterrupted dual antiplatelet therapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01225562.status: publishe

A sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer-coated stent (MiStent) versus an everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent (Xience) after percutaneous coronary intervention (DESSOLVE III): a randomised, single-blind, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial

Background MiStent is a drug-eluting stent with a fully absorbable polymer coating containing and embedding a microcrystalline form of sirolimus into the vessel wall. It was developed to overcome the limitation of current durable polymer drug-eluting stents eluting amorphous sirolimus. The clinical effect of MiStent sirolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable polymer drug-eluting stents has not been investigated in a large randomised trial in an all-comer population. Methods We did a randomised, single-blind, multicentre, phase 3 study (DESSOLVE III) at 20 hospitals in Germany, France, Netherlands, and Poland. Eligible participants were any patients aged at least 18 years who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in a lesion and had a reference vessel diameter of 2.50-3.75 mm. We randomly assigned patients (1: 1) to implantation of either a sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable polymer stent (MiStent) or an everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent (Xience). Randomisation was done by local investigators via web-based software with random blocks according to centre. The primary endpoint was a non-inferiority comparison of a device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE)-cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation-between the groups at 12 months after the procedure assessed by intention-to-treat. A margin of 4.0% was defined for non-inferiority of the MiStent group compared with the Xience group. All participants were included in the safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials. gov, number NCT02385279. Findings Between March 20, and Dec 3, 2015, we randomly assigned 1398 patients with 2030 lesions; 703 patients with 1037 lesions were assigned to MiStent, of whom 697 received the index procedure, and 695 patients with 993 lesions were asssigned to Xience, of whom 690 received the index procedure. At 12 months, the primary endpoint had occurred in 40 patients (5.8%) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and in 45 patients (6.5%) in the everolimus-eluting stent group (absolute difference -0.8% [95% CI -3.3 to 1.8], p(non-inferiority) = 0.0001). Procedural complications occurred in 12 patients (1.7%) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and ten patients (1.4%) in the everolimus-eluting stent group; no clinical adverse events could be attributed to these dislodgements through a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. The rate of stent thrombosis, a safety indicator, did not differ between groups and was low in both treatment groups. Interpretation The sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer stent was non-inferior to the everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent for a device-oriented composite clinical endpoint at 12 months in an all-comer population. MiStent seems a reasonable alternative to other stents in clinical practic