Cognitive Function with PCSK9 Inhibitors: A 24-Month Follow-Up Observational Prospective Study in the Real World—MEMOGAL Study

Introduction The cognitive safety of monoclonal antibody proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors (PCSK9i) has been established in clinical trials, but not yet in real-world observational studies. We assessed the cognitive function in patients initiating PCSK9i, and differences in cognitive function domains, to analyze subgroups by the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) achieved, and differences between alirocumab and evolocumab. Methods This has a multicenter, quasi-experimental design carried out in 12 Spanish hospitals from May 2020 to February 2023. Cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Results Among 158 patients followed for a median of 99 weeks, 52% were taking evolocumab and 48% alirocumab; the mean change from baseline in MoCA score at follow-up was + 0.28 [95% CI (− 0.17 to 0.73; p = 0.216)]. There were no significant differences in the secondary endpoints—the visuospatial/executive domain + 0.04 (p = 0.651), naming domain − 0.01 (p = 0.671), attention/memory domain + 0.01 (p = 0.945); language domain − 0.10 (p = 0.145), abstraction domain + 0.03 (p = 0.624), and orientation domain − 0.05 (p = 0.224)—but for delayed recall memory the mean change was statistically significant (improvement) + 0.44 (p = 0.001). Neither were there any differences in the three stratified subgroups according to lowest attained LDL-C level—0–54 mg/dL, 55–69 mg/dL and ≥ 70 mg/dL; p = 0.454—or between alirocumab and evolocumab arms. Conclusion We did not find effect of monoclonal antibody PCSK9i on neurocognitive function over 24 months of treatment, either in global MoCA score or different cognitive domains. An improvement in delayed recall memory was shown. The study showed no differences in the cognitive function between the prespecified subgroups, even among patients who achieved very low levels of LDL-C. There were no differences between alirocumab and evolocumab. Registration ClinicalTtrials.gov Identifier number NCT04319081Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer NatureS

Differences in weight loss and safety between the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: A non-randomized multicenter study from the titration phase

Introduction Obesity increases the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Weight loss (≥5 %) reduces the risk of CVD. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1 RA) have shown clinically weight loss. Objectives: 1) To assess differences in the efficacy of weight loss and HbA1c; 2) to evaluate the safety and adherence during the titration phase. Methods It is a multicenter, prospective, and observational study on GLP1 RA naïve patients. The primary end point was the weight loss (≥5 %). Changes in weight, BMI and HbA1c were also calculated as co-primary endpoints. Secondary endpoints were safety, adherence, and tolerance. Results Among 94 subjects, 42.4 % received dulaglutide, 29,3 % subcutaneous semaglutide, 22,8 % oral semaglutide. 45 % female and the mean age was 62. Baseline characteristics were body weight 99.3 kg, BMI 36.7 kg/m2 and Hba1c 8.2 %. Oral semaglutide achieved the highest reduction: 61.1 % of patients achieving ≥ 5 %, subcutaneous semaglutide 45.8 % and dulaglutide 40.6 %. GLP1 RA significantly reduced body weight (−4.95 kg, p < 0.001) and BMI (−1.86 kg/m2, p < 0.001), without significant differences between groups. Gastrointestinal disorders were the most frequently reported events (74.5 %). 62 % of patients on dulaglutide, 25 % on oral semaglutide and 22 % on subcutaneous semaglutide. Conclusions Oral semaglutide achieved the highest proportion of patients that lost ≥ 5 %. GLP1 RA significantly reduced BMI and HbA1c. Most of the reported adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders and they were reported in a major frequency in the dulaglutide group. Oral semaglutide would be a reasonable switch in case of future shortagesS

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used