Subsequent Event Risk in Individuals with Established Coronary Heart Disease:Design and Rationale of the GENIUS-CHD Consortium

BACKGROUND: The "GENetIcs of sUbSequent Coronary Heart Disease" (GENIUS-CHD) consortium was established to facilitate discovery and validation of genetic variants and biomarkers for risk of subsequent CHD events, in individuals with established CHD. METHODS: The consortium currently includes 57 studies from 18 countries, recruiting 185,614 participants with either acute coronary syndrome, stable CHD or a mixture of both at baseline. All studies collected biological samples and followed-up study participants prospectively for subsequent events. RESULTS: Enrollment into the individual studies took place between 1985 to present day with duration of follow up ranging from 9 months to 15 years. Within each study, participants with CHD are predominantly of self-reported European descent (38%-100%), mostly male (44%-91%) with mean ages at recruitment ranging from 40 to 75 years. Initial feasibility analyses, using a federated analysis approach, yielded expected associations between age (HR 1.15 95% CI 1.14-1.16) per 5-year increase, male sex (HR 1.17, 95% CI 1.13-1.21) and smoking (HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.35-1.51) with risk of subsequent CHD death or myocardial infarction, and differing associations with other individual and composite cardiovascular endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: GENIUS-CHD is a global collaboration seeking to elucidate genetic and non-genetic determinants of subsequent event risk in individuals with established CHD, in order to improve residual risk prediction and identify novel drug targets for secondary prevention. Initial analyses demonstrate the feasibility and reliability of a federated analysis approach. The consortium now plans to initiate and test novel hypotheses as well as supporting replication and validation analyses for other investigators

Trends in prevalence of comorbidities in heart failure clinical trials

AimsThe primary objective of this systematic review was to estimate the prevalence and temporal changes in chronic comorbid conditions reported in heart failure (HF) clinical trials.Methods and resultsWe searched MEDLINE for HF trials enrolling more than 400 patients published between 2001 and 2016.Trials were divided into HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), or trials enrolling regardless of ejection fraction. The prevalence of baseline chronic comorbid conditions was categorized according to the algorithm proposed by the Chronic Conditions Data Warehouse, which is used to analyse Medicare data. To test for a trend in the prevalence of comorbid conditions, linear regression models were used to evaluate temporal trends in prevalence of comorbidities. Overall, 118 clinical trials enrolling a cumulative total of 215 508 patients were included. Across all comorbidities examined, data were reported in a mean of 35% of trials, without significant improvement during the study period. Reporting of comorbidities was more common in HFrEF trials (51%) compared with HFpEF trials (27%). Among trials reporting data, hypertension (63%), ischaemic heart disease (44%), hyperlipidaemia (48%), diabetes (33%), chronic kidney disease (25%) and atrial fibrillation (25%) were the major comorbidities. The prevalence of comorbidities including hypertension, atrial fibrillation and chronic kidney disease increased over time while the prevalence of smoking decreased in HFrEF trials.ConclusionMany HF trials do not report baseline comorbidities. A more rigorous, systematic, and standardized framework needs to be adopted for future clinical trials to ensure adequate comorbidity reporting and improve recruitment of multi-morbid HF patients

Abstract 11661: A Family History of Premature Coronary Artery Disease is Associated With Location and Severity of Angiographically Defined Coronary Artery Stenosis

Introduction: A family history (FH) of premature coronary artery disease (CAD) is an important prognostic risk factor. Emerging evidence suggests that CAD location as well as severity may be heritable. We sought to investigate the association between a FH of premature CAD with the location and severity of angiographically phenotyped CAD. Methods: 2854 patients undergoing coronary angiography were enrolled from the Emory Cardiovascular Biobank. A FH of CAD was defined as having any male or female relative with history of CAD at age ≤55 or ≤65 year old respectively. Coronary angiograms were phenotyped using a 17 segment AHA model. Proximal disease was defined as having ≥70% lesion in the left main or proximal portion of any of the three major epicardial arteries, while CAD severity was assessed by counting the number of vessels with ≥70% stenosis. Results: Among this population (mean age 63±12, male 67%, diabetes 33%), 21% reported a positive FH of premature CAD. After adjustment for age, gender, and tradit..

Reporting and interpretation of subgroup analyses in heart failure randomized controlled trials.

AimsThis study aimed to investigate the reporting of subgroup analyses in heart failure (HF) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to determine the strength and credibility of subgroup claims.Methods and resultsAll primary HF RCTs published in nine high-impact journals from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2017 were included. Multivariable regression analysis was used to identify factors that may favour the reporting of results in specific subgroups. Strength of the subgroup effect claimed was classified into (i) strong, (ii) likely, or (iii) suggestive. Credibility of subgroup claim was scored using a pre-specified 10 pointer criteria. Of the 261 HF RCTs studied, 107 (41%) reported subgroup analyses. Twenty-five (23%) RCTs claimed a subgroup effect for the primary outcome of which six (24%) made a strong claim, eight (32%) claimed a likely effect, and 11 (44%) suggested a possible subgroup effect. Seven of the 25 RCTs did not employ interaction testing for subgroup claims of the primary outcome. Three out of 10 pre-specified credibility criteria were satisfied by half of the trials. Fourteen trials justified the choice of subgroups, and 10 explicitly stated they were underpowered to detect differences within subgroups. Source of funding did not influence the frequency of reporting subgroup analyses (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.78-3.62, P = 0.52).ConclusionsAppropriate credibility criteria were rarely met even by HF RCTs that held strong subgroup claims. Subgroup analyses should be pre-specified, be adequately powered, present interaction terms, and be replicated in independent data before being integrated into clinical decision making

Reporting and interpretation of subgroup analyses in heart failure randomized controlled trials.

AimsThis study aimed to investigate the reporting of subgroup analyses in heart failure (HF) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to determine the strength and credibility of subgroup claims.Methods and resultsAll primary HF RCTs published in nine high-impact journals from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2017 were included. Multivariable regression analysis was used to identify factors that may favour the reporting of results in specific subgroups. Strength of the subgroup effect claimed was classified into (i) strong, (ii) likely, or (iii) suggestive. Credibility of subgroup claim was scored using a pre-specified 10 pointer criteria. Of the 261 HF RCTs studied, 107 (41%) reported subgroup analyses. Twenty-five (23%) RCTs claimed a subgroup effect for the primary outcome of which six (24%) made a strong claim, eight (32%) claimed a likely effect, and 11 (44%) suggested a possible subgroup effect. Seven of the 25 RCTs did not employ interaction testing for subgroup claims of the primary outcome. Three out of 10 pre-specified credibility criteria were satisfied by half of the trials. Fourteen trials justified the choice of subgroups, and 10 explicitly stated they were underpowered to detect differences within subgroups. Source of funding did not influence the frequency of reporting subgroup analyses (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.78-3.62, P = 0.52).ConclusionsAppropriate credibility criteria were rarely met even by HF RCTs that held strong subgroup claims. Subgroup analyses should be pre-specified, be adequately powered, present interaction terms, and be replicated in independent data before being integrated into clinical decision making