Varespladib and cardiovascular events in patients with an acute coronary syndrome: the VISTA-16 randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE: Secretory phospholipase A2(sPLA2) generates bioactive phospholipid products implicated in atherosclerosis. The sPLA2inhibitor varespladib has favorable effects on lipid and inflammatory markers; however, its effect on cardiovascular outcomes is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of sPLA2inhibition with varespladib on cardiovascular outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A double-blind, randomized, multicenter trial at 362 academic and community hospitals in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, India, and North America of 5145 patients randomized within 96 hours of presentation of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) to either varespladib (n = 2572) or placebo (n = 2573) with enrollment between June 1, 2010, and March 7, 2012 (study termination on March 9, 2012). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to receive varespladib (500 mg) or placebo daily for 16 weeks, in addition to atorvastatin and other established therapies. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary efficacy measurewas a composite of cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), nonfatal stroke, or unstable angina with evidence of ischemia requiring hospitalization at 16 weeks. Six-month survival status was also evaluated. RESULTS: At a prespecified interim analysis, including 212 primary end point events, the independent data and safety monitoring board recommended termination of the trial for futility and possible harm. The primary end point occurred in 136 patients (6.1%) treated with varespladib compared with 109 patients (5.1%) treated with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; 95%CI, 0.97-1.61; log-rank P = .08). Varespladib was associated with a greater risk of MI (78 [3.4%] vs 47 [2.2%]; HR, 1.66; 95%CI, 1.16-2.39; log-rank P = .005). The composite secondary end point of cardiovascular mortality, MI, and stroke was observed in 107 patients (4.6%) in the varespladib group and 79 patients (3.8%) in the placebo group (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.02-1.82; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In patients with recent ACS, varespladib did not reduce the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events and significantly increased the risk of MI. The sPLA2inhibition with varespladib may be harmful and is not a useful strategy to reduce adverse cardiovascular outcomes after ACS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01130246. Copyright 2014 American Medical Association. All rights reserved

Why Are Outcomes Different for Registry Patients Enrolled Prospectively and Retrospectively? Insights from the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF).

Background: Retrospective and prospective observational studies are designed to reflect real-world evidence on clinical practice, but can yield conflicting results. The GARFIELD-AF Registry includes both methods of enrolment and allows analysis of differences in patient characteristics and outcomes that may result. Methods and Results: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and ≥1 risk factor for stroke at diagnosis of AF were recruited either retrospectively (n = 5069) or prospectively (n = 5501) from 19 countries and then followed prospectively. The retrospectively enrolled cohort comprised patients with established AF (for a least 6, and up to 24 months before enrolment), who were identified retrospectively (and baseline and partial follow-up data were collected from the emedical records) and then followed prospectively between 0-18 months (such that the total time of follow-up was 24 months; data collection Dec-2009 and Oct-2010). In the prospectively enrolled cohort, patients with newly diagnosed AF (≤6 weeks after diagnosis) were recruited between Mar-2010 and Oct-2011 and were followed for 24 months after enrolment. Differences between the cohorts were observed in clinical characteristics, including type of AF, stroke prevention strategies, and event rates. More patients in the retrospectively identified cohort received vitamin K antagonists (62.1% vs. 53.2%) and fewer received non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (1.8% vs . 4.2%). All-cause mortality rates per 100 person-years during the prospective follow-up (starting the first study visit up to 1 year) were significantly lower in the retrospective than prospectively identified cohort (3.04 [95% CI 2.51 to 3.67] vs . 4.05 [95% CI 3.53 to 4.63]; p = 0.016). Conclusions: Interpretations of data from registries that aim to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients with AF must take account of differences in registry design and the impact of recall bias and survivorship bias that is incurred with retrospective enrolment. Clinical Trial Registration: - URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362)

Improved risk stratification of patients with atrial fibrillation: an integrated GARFIELD-AF tool for the prediction of mortality, stroke and bleed in patients with and without anticoagulation.

OBJECTIVES: To provide an accurate, web-based tool for stratifying patients with atrial fibrillation to facilitate decisions on the potential benefits/risks of anticoagulation, based on mortality, stroke and bleeding risks. DESIGN: The new tool was developed, using stepwise regression, for all and then applied to lower risk patients. C-statistics were compared with CHA2DS2-VASc using 30-fold cross-validation to control for overfitting. External validation was undertaken in an independent dataset, Outcome Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF). PARTICIPANTS: Data from 39 898 patients enrolled in the prospective GARFIELD-AF registry provided the basis for deriving and validating an integrated risk tool to predict stroke risk, mortality and bleeding risk. RESULTS: The discriminatory value of the GARFIELD-AF risk model was superior to CHA2DS2-VASc for patients with or without anticoagulation. C-statistics (95% CI) for all-cause mortality, ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism and haemorrhagic stroke/major bleeding (treated patients) were: 0.77 (0.76 to 0.78), 0.69 (0.67 to 0.71) and 0.66 (0.62 to 0.69), respectively, for the GARFIELD-AF risk models, and 0.66 (0.64-0.67), 0.64 (0.61-0.66) and 0.64 (0.61-0.68), respectively, for CHA2DS2-VASc (or HAS-BLED for bleeding). In very low to low risk patients (CHA2DS2-VASc 0 or 1 (men) and 1 or 2 (women)), the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED (for bleeding) scores offered weak discriminatory value for mortality, stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding. C-statistics for the GARFIELD-AF risk tool were 0.69 (0.64 to 0.75), 0.65 (0.56 to 0.73) and 0.60 (0.47 to 0.73) for each end point, respectively, versus 0.50 (0.45 to 0.55), 0.59 (0.50 to 0.67) and 0.55 (0.53 to 0.56) for CHA2DS2-VASc (or HAS-BLED for bleeding). Upon validation in the ORBIT-AF population, C-statistics showed that the GARFIELD-AF risk tool was effective for predicting 1-year all-cause mortality using the full and simplified model for all-cause mortality: C-statistics 0.75 (0.73 to 0.77) and 0.75 (0.73 to 0.77), respectively, and for predicting for any stroke or systemic embolism over 1 year, C-statistics 0.68 (0.62 to 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Performance of the GARFIELD-AF risk tool was superior to CHA2DS2-VASc in predicting stroke and mortality and superior to HAS-BLED for bleeding, overall and in lower risk patients. The GARFIELD-AF tool has the potential for incorporation in routine electronic systems, and for the first time, permits simultaneous evaluation of ischaemic stroke, mortality and bleeding risks. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362) and for ORBIT-AF (NCT01165710)

Two-year outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation: results from GARFIELD-AF.

AIMS: The relationship between outcomes and time after diagnosis for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is poorly defined, especially beyond the first year. METHODS AND RESULTS: GARFIELD-AF is an ongoing, global observational study of adults with newly diagnosed NVAF. Two-year outcomes of 17 162 patients prospectively enrolled in GARFIELD-AF were analysed in light of baseline characteristics, risk profiles for stroke/systemic embolism (SE), and antithrombotic therapy. The mean (standard deviation) age was 69.8 (11.4) years, 43.8% were women, and the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3.3 (1.6); 60.8% of patients were prescribed anticoagulant therapy with/without antiplatelet (AP) therapy, 27.4% AP monotherapy, and 11.8% no antithrombotic therapy. At 2-year follow-up, all-cause mortality, stroke/SE, and major bleeding had occurred at a rate (95% confidence interval) of 3.83 (3.62; 4.05), 1.25 (1.13; 1.38), and 0.70 (0.62; 0.81) per 100 person-years, respectively. Rates for all three major events were highest during the first 4 months. Congestive heart failure, acute coronary syndromes, sudden/unwitnessed death, malignancy, respiratory failure, and infection/sepsis accounted for 65% of all known causes of death and strokes for <10%. Anticoagulant treatment was associated with a 35% lower risk of death. CONCLUSION: The most frequent of the three major outcome measures was death, whose most common causes are not known to be significantly influenced by anticoagulation. This suggests that a more comprehensive approach to the management of NVAF may be needed to improve outcome. This could include, in addition to anticoagulation, interventions targeting modifiable, cause-specific risk factors for death. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01090362

Risk profiles and one-year outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation in India: Insights from the GARFIELD-AF Registry.

BACKGROUND: The Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF) is an ongoing prospective noninterventional registry, which is providing important information on the baseline characteristics, treatment patterns, and 1-year outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This report describes data from Indian patients recruited in this registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 52,014 patients with newly diagnosed AF were enrolled globally; of these, 1388 patients were recruited from 26 sites within India (2012-2016). In India, the mean age was 65.8 years at diagnosis of NVAF. Hypertension was the most prevalent risk factor for AF, present in 68.5% of patients from India and in 76.3% of patients globally (P < 0.001). Diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD) were prevalent in 36.2% and 28.1% of patients as compared with global prevalence of 22.2% and 21.6%, respectively (P < 0.001 for both). Antiplatelet therapy was the most common antithrombotic treatment in India. With increasing stroke risk, however, patients were more likely to receive oral anticoagulant therapy [mainly vitamin K antagonist (VKA)], but average international normalized ratio (INR) was lower among Indian patients [median INR value 1.6 (interquartile range {IQR}: 1.3-2.3) versus 2.3 (IQR 1.8-2.8) (P < 0.001)]. Compared with other countries, patients from India had markedly higher rates of all-cause mortality [7.68 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval 6.32-9.35) vs 4.34 (4.16-4.53), P < 0.0001], while rates of stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding were lower after 1 year of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Compared to previously published registries from India, the GARFIELD-AF registry describes clinical profiles and outcomes in Indian patients with AF of a different etiology. The registry data show that compared to the rest of the world, Indian AF patients are younger in age and have more diabetes and CAD. Patients with a higher stroke risk are more likely to receive anticoagulation therapy with VKA but are underdosed compared with the global average in the GARFIELD-AF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01090362

Evacetrapib and Cardiovascular Outcomes in High-Risk Vascular Disease

BACKGROUND: The cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor evacetrapib substantially raises the high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level, reduces the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level, and enhances cellular cholesterol efflux capacity. We sought to determine the effect of evacetrapib on major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with high-risk vascular disease. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, we enrolled 12,092 patients who had at least one of the following conditions: an acute coronary syndrome within the previous 30 to 365 days, cerebrovascular atherosclerotic disease, peripheral vascular arterial disease, or diabetes mellitus with coronary artery disease. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either evacetrapib at a dose of 130 mg or matching placebo, administered daily, in addition to standard medical therapy. The primary efficacy end point was the first occurrence of any component of the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina. RESULTS: At 3 months, a 31.1% decrease in the mean LDL cholesterol level was observed with evacetrapib versus a 6.0% increase with placebo, and a 133.2% increase in the mean HDL cholesterol level was seen with evacetrapib versus a 1.6% increase with placebo. After 1363 of the planned 1670 primary end-point events had occurred, the data and safety monitoring board recommended that the trial be terminated early because of a lack of efficacy. After a median of 26 months of evacetrapib or placebo, a primary end-point event occurred in 12.9% of the patients in the evacetrapib group and in 12.8% of those in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.91 to 1.11; P=0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Although the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor evacetrapib had favorable effects on established lipid biomarkers, treatment with evacetrapib did not result in a lower rate of cardiovascular events than placebo among patients with high-risk vascular disease. (Funded by Eli Lilly; ACCELERATE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01687998 .)

Design of a clinical trial for the assessment cardioversion using Transesophageal Echocardiography (The ACUTE Multicenter Study)

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing cardioversion are at an increased risk of cardioembolic stroke and require anticoagulation, The Assessment of Cardioversion Using Transesophageal Echocardiography (ACUTE) Multicenter Study is a randomized clinical trial of patients undergoing electrical cardioversion of AF of >2 days' duration comparing a transesophageal-guided strategy (TEE) with brief anticoagulation to the conventional anticoagulation strategy. patients randomly assigned to the TEE-guided strategy receive therapeutic anticoagulation before TEE and cardioversion, followed by 4 weeks of anticoagulation, Patients with thrombus imaged by TEE have postponement of cardioversion, continue anticoagulation for 3 weeks, and undergo a repeat TEE, Conventional strategy patients receive 3 weeks of anticoagulation before cardioversion, followed by 4 weeks of anticoagulation after cardioversion, The primary end point events are ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, and systemic embolization for an 8-week period from enrollment, Secondary end points are major and minor bleeding, all-cause mortality, successful return to and maintenance of sinus rhythm, and cost effectiveness, Analysis is based on the intention-to-treat principle. The anticipated rates of embolism of 2.9% for conventional strategy and 1.2% for the TEE-guided strategy are based on published research and the completed pilot study, The ACUTE Multicenter Study will randomize therapy and follow an estimated 3,000 patients from 65 study sites to determine the relative efficacy of the TEE-guided and conventional approaches to electrical cardioversion for patients in AF, The results of this investigation will have important clinical implications for the management of patients with AF undergoing electrical cardioversion. (C) 1998 by Excerpta Medica, Inc.Cleveland Clin Fdn, Dept Cardiol, Sect Cardiovasc Imaging, Cleveland, OH 44195 USAUniv Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292 USAUniv Nebraska, Omaha, NE 68182 USAWinthrop Univ Hosp, Mineola, NY 11501 USAEscorts Heart Inst & Res Ctr, New Delhi, IndiaCtr Med Caracas, Caracas, VenezuelaUniv Fed Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, BrazilLancaster Heart Fdn, Lancaster, PA USAUniv Essen Gesamthsch, Essen, GermanyEl Azhar Univ, Cairo, EgyptSt Elisabeth Hosp, Tilburg, NetherlandsUniv Pittsburgh, Med Ctr, Pittsburgh, PA USARiverside Methodist Hosp, Columbus, OH 43214 USAUniv Rochester, Strong Mem Hosp, Rochester, NY 14642 USAUniv Calif San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143 USAUniv Massachusetts, Worcester, MA 01605 USAHosp Vera Cruz, Belo Horizonte, MG, BrazilHosp Socor, Belo Horizonte, MG, BrazilSaginaw Heart Grp, Saginaw, MI USAUniv Calif San Diego, San Diego, CA 92103 USANew England Med Ctr, Boston, MA 02111 USAWhite River Junction VA Med Ctr, White River Junction, VT USAUniv Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH USAVet Affairs Med Ctr, Bronx, NY USAVirginia Commonwealth Univ, Med Coll Virginia, Richmond, VA 23298 USAHarbor UCLA Med Ctr, Torrance, CA 90509 USAOsped Civile, Cento, ItalyUniv Chicago, Med Ctr, Chicago, IL 60637 USAUniv Texas, SW Med Ctr, Dallas, TX USAManly Hosp, Manly, NSW, AustraliaPrince Henry Hosp, Sydney, NSW, AustraliaN Shore Univ Hosp, Manhasset, NY USABaylor Coll Med, Methodist Hosp, Houston, TX 77030 USATexas Heart Inst, Houston, TX 77025 USAUniv New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131 USARoyal Victoria Hosp, Montreal, PQ H3A 1A1, CanadaColumbia Cardiovasc Clin, Columbia, SC USAAustin Heart, Austin, TX USAOhio State Univ, Columbus, OH 43210 USAMed Coll Wisconsin, Froedtert Mem Lutheran Hosp, Milwaukee, WI 53226 USASt Nicholas Hosp, Milwaukee Cardiovasc Res, Milwaukee, WI USABlodgett Mem Med Ctr, Grand Rapids, MI USAClearwater Cardiovasc Consultants, Largo, FL USAN Cent Heart Fdn, Sioux Falls, SD USASentara Norfolk Gen Hosp, Norfolk, VA USALoma Linda VA Med Ctr, Loma Linda, CA USAMacNeal Ctr Clin Res, Berwyn, IL USATemple Univ Hosp, Philadelphia, PA 19140 USAHungarian Inst Cardiol, Budapest, HungaryBoston Univ, Boston, MA 02215 USABeth Israel Hosp, Boston, MA 02215 USAHosp Servidores Estado, Logoa, BrazilE Carolina Univ, Greenville, NC USAHartford Hosp, Hartford, CT 06115 USAGrad Hosp Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA 19146 USASt Lukes Roosevelt Hosp, New York, NY 10025 USAAlton Ochsner Med Fdn & Ochsner Clin, New Orleans, LA 70121 USAEaston Hosp, Easton, PA USASt Johns Mercy Med Ctr, St Louis, MO 63141 USAMichigan Capital Med Ctr, Lansing, MI USAAlbany Med Coll, Albany, NY 12208 USAMontefiore Med Ctr, Bronx, NY 10467 USAUniv Kansas, Med Ctr, Kansas City, KS 66103 USAAndroscoggin Cardiol Associates, Auburn, ME USACleveland Clin Fdn, Dept Biostat & Epidemiol, Cleveland, OH 44195 USAEmory Univ, Sch Publ Hlth, Atlanta, GA USACleveland Clin Fdn, Dept Biostat, Cleveland, OH 44195 USACleveland Clin Fdn, Dept Vasc Med, Cleveland, OH 44195 USACleveland Clin Fdn, Dept Neurol, Cleveland, OH 44195 USAUniv Fed Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, BrazilWeb of Scienc

Predictors of NOAC versus VKA use for stroke prevention in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation: Results from GARFIELD-AF

Introduction: A principal aim of the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF) was to document changes in treatment practice for patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation during an era when non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) were becoming more widely adopted. In these analyses, the key factors which determined the choice between NOACs and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are explored. Methods: Logistic least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression determined predictors of NOAC and VKA use. Data were collected from 24,137 patients who were initiated on AC ± antiplatelet (AP) therapy (NOAC [51.4%] or VKA [48.6%]) between April 2013 and August 2016. Results: The most significant predictors of AC therapy were country, enrolment year, care setting at diagnosis, AF type, concomitant AP, and kidney disease. Patients enrolled in emergency care or in the outpatient setting were more likely to receive a NOAC than those enrolled in hospital (OR 1.16 [95% CI: 1.04-1.30], OR: 1.15 [95% CI: 1.05-1.25], respectively). NOAC prescribing seemed to be favored in lower-risk groups, namely, patients with paroxysmal AF, normotensive patients, and those with moderate alcohol consumption, but also the elderly and patients with acute coronary syndrome. By contrast, VKAs were preferentially used in patients with permanent AF, moderate to severe kidney disease, heart failure, vascular disease, and diabetes and with concomitant AP. Conclusion: GARFIELD-AF data highlight marked heterogeneity in stroke prevention strategies globally. Physicians are adopting an individualized approach to stroke prevention where NOACs are favored in patients with a lower stroke risk but also in the elderly and patients with acute coronary syndrome

Stroke prevention in patients from Latin American countries with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: Insights from the GARFIELD-AF registry

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an important preventable cause of stroke. Anticoagulation (AC) therapy can reduce this risk. However, prescribing patterns and outcomes in patients with non-valvular AF (NVAF) from Latin American countries are poorly described. Methods: Using data from the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-AF (GARFIELD-AF), we examined the stroke prevention strategies and the 1-year outcomes in patients from four Latin American countries: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico. Results: A total of 4162 patients (2010-2014) were included in this analysis. At the time of AF diagnosis, 39.9% of patients were prescribed vitamin K antagonists (VKA) ± antiplatelet (AP) therapy, 21.8% non-VKA oral anticoagulant (NOAC) ± AP, 24.1% AP only and 14.1% no antithrombotic treatment. The proportion of moderate-high risk patients receiving no AC therapy at participating centers was highest in Mexico (46.4%) and lowest in Chile (14.3%). During 1-year follow-up, the rates of all-cause mortality, stroke/SE and major bleeding were: 5.77 (95% CI) (5.06-6.56), 1.58 (1.23-2.02), and 0.99 (0.72-1.36) and per 100 person-years, respectively, which are higher than the global rates across all countries in GARFIELD-AF. Unadjusted rates of all-cause mortality were highest in Argentina, 6.95 (5.43-8.90), and lowest in Chile, 4.01 (2.92-5.52). Conclusions: GARFIELD-AF results describes the marked variation in the baseline characteristics and patterns of antithrombotic treatments in patients with NVAF in four Latin American countries. Over one-third of patients with a moderate-to-high risk of stroke received no AC therapy, highlighting the need for improved management of patients according to national guideline. Clinical Trial Registration—URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01090362