Targeted anti-inflammatory systemic therapy for restenosis: The Biorest Liposomal Alendronate with Stenting sTudy (BLAST)—a double blind, randomized clinical trial

Background Activation of systemic innate immunity is critical in the chain of events leading to restenosis. LABR-312 is a novel compound that transiently modulates circulating monocytes, reducing accumulation of these cells at vascular injury sites and around stent struts. The purpose of the study was to examine the safety and efficacy of a single intravenous bolus of LABR-312 in reducing restenosis in patients treated for coronary narrowing. Patient response was examined in light of differential inflammatory states as evidenced by baseline circulating monocyte levels, diabetes mellitus, and acute coronary syndrome. Methods BLAST is a Phase II prospective, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that assessed the safety and efficacy of LABR-312. Patients were randomized to receive LABR-312 at 2 dose levels or placebo as an intravenous infusion during percutaneous coronary intervention and bare metal stent implantation. The primary end point was mean angiographic in-stent late loss at 6 months. Results Patients (N = 225) were enrolled at 12 centers. There were no safety concerns associated with the study drug. For the overall cohort, there were no differences between the groups in the primary efficacy end point (in-stent late loss of 0.86 ± 0.60 mm, 0.83 ± 0.57 mm, and 0.81 ± 0.68 mm for the placebo, low-dose, and high-dose group, respectively; P = not significant for all comparisons). In the prespecified subgroups of patients with a baseline proinflammatory state, patients with diabetes mellitus, and patients with high baseline monocyte count, there was a significant treatment effect. Conclusions Intravenous administration of LABR-312 to patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention is safe and effectively modulates monocyte behavior. The average late loss did not differ between the treatment and placebo groups. However, in the inflammatory patient group with baseline monocyte count higher than the median value, there was a significant reduction in late loss with LABR-312.BIOrest Ltd

Association of insurance type with receipt of oral anticoagulation in insured patients with atrial fibrillation: A report from the American college of cardiology NCDR PINNACLE registry

Background: It is poorly understood whether insurance type may be a major contributor to the underuse of oral anticoagulation (OAC) among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), particularly for novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs). Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort registry study of patients with insurance, AF, CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2, and at least one outpatient encounter recorded in the ACC NCDR\u27s PINNACLE Registry between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2014. We used hierarchical regression, adjusting for patient characteristics and clustering by physician, to evaluate the association of insurance type (Private, Military, Medicare, Medicaid, Other) with receipt of OAC (any OAC, warfarin, or NOAC). Results: In 363,309 patients (age 75±10; 48% female), we found a significant difference in proportions of OAC and NOAC prescription across insurance types (OAC: Military 53%, Private 53%, Medicare 52%, Other 41%, Medicaid 41%, P\u3c.001; NOAC: Military 24%, Private 19%, Medicare 17%, Other 17%, Medicaid 8%, P\u3c.001). After adjustment for patient characteristics and facility, private, Medicaid, and other insurance were independently associated with a lower odds of OAC prescription relative to Medicare, but military insured patients were not significantly different. After adjustment, military and private insurance were independently associated with a higher odds of NOAC prescription relative to Medicare, while Medicaid and other insurance were associated with a lower odds of NOAC prescription. Conclusions: In a contemporary US AF population, there was significant variation of OAC prescription across insurance plans, with the highest among private and Medicare insured patients. These differences may indicate that insurance plan, and its associated pharmacy benefits, affect the pace of diffusion of new therapie

Cost‐Effectiveness of Supervised Exercise, Stenting, and Optimal Medical Care for Claudication: Results From the Claudication: Exercise Versus Endoluminal Revascularization (CLEVER) Trial

Background: Both supervised exercise (SE) and stenting (ST) improve functional status, symptoms, and quality of life compared with optimal medical care (OMC) in patients with claudication. The relative cost‐effectiveness of these strategies is not well defined. Methods and Results: The Claudication: Exercise Versus Endoluminal Revascularization (CLEVER) study randomized patients with claudication due to aortoiliac stenosis to a 6‐month SE program, to ST, or to OMC. Participants who completed 6‐month follow‐up (n=98) were included in a health economic analysis through 18 months. Costs were assessed using resource‐based methods and hospital billing data. Quality‐adjusted life‐years were estimated using the EQ‐5D. Markov modeling based on the in‐trial results was used to explore the impact of assumptions about the longer term durability of observed differences in quality of life. Through 18 months, mean healthcare costs were $5178,$9804, and $14 590 per patient for OMC, SE, and ST, respectively. Measured quality‐adjusted life‐years through 18 months were 1.04, 1.16, and 1.20. In our base case analysis, which assumed that observed differences in quality of life would dissipate after 5 years, the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios were$24 070 per quality‐adjusted life‐year gained for SE versus OMC, $41 376 for ST versus OMC, and$122 600 for ST versus SE. If the treatment effect of ST was assumed to be more durable than that of SE, the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio for ST versus SE became more favorable. Conclusions: Both SE and ST are economically attractive by US standards relative to OMC for the treatment of claudication in patients with aortoiliac disease. ST is more expensive than SE, with uncertain incremental benefit. Clinical Trial Registration URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov, Unique identifier: NCT00132743

4-year results of a randomized controlled trial of percutaneous repair versus surgery for mitral regurgitation

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate 4-year outcomes of percutaneous repair versus surgery for mitral regurgitation. BACKGROUND: Transcatheter therapies are being developed to treat valvular heart disease. In the EVEREST (Endovascular Valve Edge-to-Edge Repair Study) II trial, treatment of mitral valve regurgitation (MR) with a novel percutaneous device was compared with surgery and showed superior safety, but less reduction in MR at 1 year overall. We report the 4-year outcomes from the EVEREST II trial. METHODS: Patients with grade 3+ or 4+ MR were randomly assigned to percutaneous repair with the MitraClip (Abbott, Menlo Park, California) device or conventional mitral valve surgery in a 2:1 ratio (184:95). Patients prospectively consented to 5 years of follow-up. RESULTS: At 4 years, the rate of the composite endpoint of freedom from death, surgery, or 3+ or 4+ MR in the intention-to-treat population was 39.8% versus 53.4% in the percutaneous repair group and surgical groups, respectively (p = 0.070). Rates of death were 17.4% versus 17.8% (p = 0.914), and 3+ or 4+ MR was present in 21.7% versus 24.7% (p = 0.745) at 4 years of follow-up, respectively. Surgery for mitral valve dysfunction, however, occurred in 20.4% versus 2.2% (p \u3c 0.001) at 1 year and 24.8% versus 5.5% (p \u3c 0.001) at 4 years. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with percutaneous repair of the mitral valve more commonly required surgery to treat residual MR; however, after the first year of follow-up, there were few surgeries required after either percutaneous or surgical treatment and no difference in the prevalence of moderate-severe and severe MR or mortality at 4 years. (Endovascular Valve Edge-to-Edge Repair Study [EVEREST II]; NCT00209274)

Development and Validation of a Prediction Rule for Benefit and Harm of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Beyond 1 Year After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

IMPORTANCE: Dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces ischemia but increases bleeding. OBJECTIVE: To develop a clinical decision tool to identify patients expected to derive benefit vs harm from continuing thienopyridine beyond 1 year after PCI. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Among 11,648 randomized DAPT Study patients from 11 countries (August 2009-May 2014), a prediction rule was derived stratifying patients into groups to distinguish ischemic and bleeding risk 12 to 30 months after PCI. Validation was internal via bootstrap resampling and external among 8136 patients from 36 countries randomized in the PROTECT trial (June 2007-July 2014). EXPOSURES: Twelve months of open-label thienopyridine plus aspirin, then randomized to 18 months of continued thienopyridine plus aspirin vs placebo plus aspirin. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Ischemia (myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis) and bleeding (moderate or severe) 12 to 30 months after PCI. RESULTS: Among DAPT Study patients (derivation cohort; mean age, 61.3 years; women, 25.1%), ischemia occurred in 348 patients (3.0%) and bleeding in 215 (1.8%). Derivation cohort models predicting ischemia and bleeding had c statistics of 0.70 and 0.68, respectively. The prediction rule assigned 1 point each for myocardial infarction at presentation, prior myocardial infarction or PCI, diabetes, stent diameter less than 3 mm, smoking, and paclitaxel-eluting stent; 2 points each for history of congestive heart failure/low ejection fraction and vein graft intervention; -1 point for age 65 to younger than 75 years; and -2 points for age 75 years or older. Among the high score group (score ≥2, n = 5917), continued thienopyridine vs placebo was associated with reduced ischemic events (2.7% vs 5.7%; risk difference [RD], -3.0% [95% CI, -4.1% to -2.0%], P < .001) compared with the low score group (score <2, n = 5731; 1.7% vs 2.3%; RD, -0.7% [95% CI, -1.4% to 0.09%], P = .07; interaction P < .001). Conversely, continued thienopyridine was associated with smaller increases in bleeding among the high score group (1.8% vs 1.4%; RD, 0.4% [95% CI, -0.3% to 1.0%], P = .26) compared with the low score group (3.0% vs 1.4%; RD, 1.5% [95% CI, 0.8% to 2.3%], P < .001; interaction P = .02). Among PROTECT patients (validation cohort; mean age, 62 years; women, 23.7%), ischemia occurred in 79 patients (1.0%) and bleeding in 37 (0.5%), with a c statistic of 0.64 for ischemia and 0.64 for bleeding. In this cohort, the high-score patients (n = 2848) had increased ischemic events compared with the low-score patients and no significant difference in bleeding. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Among patients not sustaining major bleeding or ischemic events 1 year after PCI, a prediction rule assessing late ischemic and bleeding risks to inform dual antiplatelet therapy duration showed modest accuracy in derivation and validation cohorts. This rule requires further prospective evaluation to assess potential effects on patient care, as well as validation in other cohorts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00977938