Effect of body mass index on effectiveness of CT versus invasive coronary angiography in stable chest pain: The DISCHARGE trial

Background Recent trials support the role of cardiac CT in the evaluation of symptomatic patients suspected of having coronary artery disease (CAD); however, body mass index (BMI) has been reported to negatively impact CT image quality. Purpose To compare initial use of CT versus invasive coronary angiography (ICA) on clinical outcomes in patients with stable chest pain stratified by BMI category. Materials and Methods This prospective study represents a prespecified BMI subgroup analysis of the multicenter Diagnostic Imaging Strategies for Patients with Stable Chest Pain and Intermediate Risk of Coronary Artery Disease (DISCHARGE) trial conducted between October 2015 and April 2019. Adult patients with stable chest pain and a CAD pretest probability of 10%–60% were randomly assigned to undergo initial CT or ICA. The primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke. The secondary end point was an expanded MACE composite, including transient ischemic attack, and major procedure-related complications. Competing risk analyses were performed using the Fine and Gray subdistribution Cox proportional hazard model to assess the impact of the relationship between BMI and initial management with CT or ICA on the study outcomes, whereas noncardiovascular death and unknown causes of death were considered competing risk events. Results Among the 3457 participants included, 831 (24.0%), 1358 (39.3%), and 1268 (36.7%) had a BMI of less than 25, between 25 and 30, and greater than 30 kg/m2, respectively. No interaction was found between CT or ICA and BMI for MACE (P = .29), the expanded MACE composite (P = .38), or major procedure-related complications (P = .49). Across all BMI subgroups, expanded MACE composite events (CT, 10 of 409 [2.4%] to 23 of 697 [3.3%]; ICA, 26 of 661 [3.9%] to 21 of 422 [5.1%]) and major procedure-related complications during initial management (CT, one of 638 [0.2%] to five of 697 [0.7%]; ICA, nine of 630 [1.4%] to 12 of 422 [2.9%]) were less frequent in the CT versus ICA group. Participants with a BMI exceeding 30 kg/m² exhibited a higher nondiagnostic CT rate (7.1%, P = .044) compared to participants with lower BMI. Conclusion There was no evidence of a difference in outcomes between CT and ICA across the three BMI subgroups

CT or Invasive Coronary Angiography in Stable Chest Pain.

Background: In the diagnosis of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), computed tomography (CT) is an accurate, noninvasive alternative to invasive coronary angiography (ICA). However, the comparative effectiveness of CT and ICA in the management of CAD to reduce the frequency of major adverse cardiovascular events is uncertain. Methods: We conducted a pragmatic, randomized trial comparing CT with ICA as initial diagnostic imaging strategies for guiding the treatment of patients with stable chest pain who had an intermediate pretest probability of obstructive CAD and were referred for ICA at one of 26 European centers. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) over 3.5 years. Key secondary outcomes were procedure-related complications and angina pectoris. Results: Among 3561 patients (56.2% of whom were women), follow-up was complete for 3523 (98.9%). Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 38 of 1808 patients (2.1%) in the CT group and in 52 of 1753 (3.0%) in the ICA group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 1.07; P = 0.10). Major procedure-related complications occurred in 9 patients (0.5%) in the CT group and in 33 (1.9%) in the ICA group (hazard ratio, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.55). Angina during the final 4 weeks of follow-up was reported in 8.8% of the patients in the CT group and in 7.5% of those in the ICA group (odds ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.48). Conclusions: Among patients referred for ICA because of stable chest pain and intermediate pretest probability of CAD, the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events was similar in the CT group and the ICA group. The frequency of major procedure-related complications was lower with an initial CT strategy. (Funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Program and others; DISCHARGE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02400229.)

Efficacy and safety of baricitinib in hospitalized adults with severe or critical COVID-19 (Bari-SolidAct): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial

International audienceAbstract Background Baricitinib has shown efficacy in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, but no placebo-controlled trials have focused specifically on severe/critical COVID, including vaccinated participants. Methods Bari-SolidAct is a phase-3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, enrolling participants from June 3, 2021 to March 7, 2022, stopped prematurely for external evidence. Patients with severe/critical COVID-19 were randomised to Baricitinib 4 mg once daily or placebo, added to standard of care. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality within 60 days. Participants were remotely followed to day 90 for safety and patient related outcome measures. Results Two hundred ninety-nine patients were screened, 284 randomised, and 275 received study drug or placebo and were included in the modified intent-to-treat analyses (139 receiving baricitinib and 136 placebo). Median age was 60 (IQR 49–69) years, 77% were male and 35% had received at least one dose of SARS-CoV2 vaccine. There were 21 deaths at day 60 in each group, 15.1% in the baricitinib group and 15.4% in the placebo group (adjusted absolute difference and 95% CI − 0.1% [− 8·3 to 8·0]). In sensitivity analysis censoring observations after drug discontinuation or rescue therapy (tocilizumab/increased steroid dose), proportions of death were 5.8% versus 8.8% (− 3.2% [− 9.0 to 2.7]), respectively. There were 148 serious adverse events in 46 participants (33.1%) receiving baricitinib and 155 in 51 participants (37.5%) receiving placebo. In subgroup analyses, there was a potential interaction between vaccination status and treatment allocation on 60-day mortality. In a subsequent post hoc analysis there was a significant interaction between vaccination status and treatment allocation on the occurrence of serious adverse events, with more respiratory complications and severe infections in vaccinated participants treated with baricitinib. Vaccinated participants were on average 11 years older, with more comorbidities. Conclusion This clinical trial was prematurely stopped for external evidence and therefore underpowered to conclude on a potential survival benefit of baricitinib in severe/critical COVID-19. We observed a possible safety signal in vaccinated participants, who were older with more comorbidities. Although based on a post-hoc analysis, these findings warrant further investigation in other trials and real-world studies. Trial registration Bari-SolidAct is registered at NCT04891133 (registered May 18, 2021) and EUClinicalTrials.eu ( 2022-500385-99-00 )