Second-Generation Everolimus-Eluting Stents Versus First-Generation Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction 1-Year Results of the Randomized XAMI (XienceV Stent vs. Cypher Stent in Primary PCI for Acute Myocardial Infarction) Trial

ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of second-generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI).BackgroundDrug-eluting stents (DES) in AMI are still feared for possible late and very late stent thrombosis (ST). Newer-generation DES, with more hemocompatible polymers and improved healing, may show promise regarding increased efficacy of DES with improved safety. However, no randomized trials in AMI are available.MethodsA total of 625 patients with AMI were randomized (2:1) to receive EES or SES in the XAMI (XienceV Stent vs Cypher Stent in Primary PCI for Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial. Primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year consisting of cardiac death, nonfatal AMI, or any target vessel revascularization. The study was powered for noninferiority of EES. Secondary endpoints comprised ST rates and MACE rate up to 3 years.ResultsThe MACE rate was 4.0% for EES and 7.7% for SES; the absolute difference was −3.7% (95% confidence interval: −8.28 to −0.03; p = 0.048) and relative risk was 0.52 (95% confidence interval: 0.27 to 1.00). One-year cardiac mortality was low at 1.5% for EES versus 2.7% for SES (p = 0.36), and 1-year incidence of definite and/or probable ST was 1.2% for EES versus 2.7% for SES (p = 0.21).ConclusionsIn this all-comer, randomized, multicenter AMI trial, second-generation EES was noninferior to SES, and superiority for MACE was suggested. ST rate in EES at 1-year was low, but long-term follow-up and larger studies will have to show whether very late ST rates will also be improved in newer DES. (XienceV Stent vs Cypher Stent in Primary PCI for Acute Myocardial Infarction [XAMI]; NTR1123

Two-Year Results of an Open-Label Randomized Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting Stents and Sirolimus-Eluting Stents

<div><p>Background</p><p>Second generation drug-eluting stents were developed to improve the safety and efficacy of first generation stents. So far, limited long term randomized data exist comparing the second generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with first generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES).</p><p>Methods</p><p>A prospective, open-label, randomized, single center trial comparing EES and SES in all-comer patients. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization. Secondary endpoints included individual components of the composite, along with target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis.</p><p>Results</p><p>In total, 977 patients were randomized, of which 498 patients to EES and 479 to SES. Average age was 65.2±11.2 years and 71.6% of the population was male. Fifty percent of patients were treated for acute coronary syndrome, more often for ST-elevation myocardial infarctions in EES patients (13.7% vs. 9.2% in SES). In contrast, SES patients more often had prior interventions and showed more calcified lesions. Two-year follow-up was available in 98% of patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 10.7% of EES patients compared to 10.6% of SES patients (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68–1.48). Additionally, secondary endpoints were similar between groups. The rate of stent thrombosis was low for both stent types.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>In this all-comer population, there were no differences in endpoints between EES and SES during two-year follow-up. Stent thrombosis rates were low, supporting the safety of drug-eluting stent appliance in clinical practice.</p><p>Trial registration</p><p>TrialRegister.nl <a href="http://trialregister.nl/ct2/show/NTR3170" target="_blank">NTR3170</a></p></div

Biomarkers for risk stratification of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention : Insights from the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes trial

Background The incremental prognostic value of admission measurements of biomarkers beyond clinical characteristics and extent of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is unclear. Methods Centrally analyzed plasma for biomarker measurements was available in 5,385 of the STEMI patients treated with PPCI in the PLATO trial. Extent of CAD was graded by operators in association with PPCI. We evaluated the prognostic value of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) beyond clinical characteristics and extent of CAD using Cox proportional hazards analyses, C-index, and net reclassification improvement (NRI). Outcomes were cardiovascular death (CVD) and spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI). Results Angiographic data on extent of CAD improved the prediction of CVD compared to clinical risk factors alone, increasing the C-index from 0.760 to 0.778, total NRI of 0.31. Biomarker information provided additional prognostic value for CVD beyond clinical risk factors and extent of CAD, C-indices ranging from 0.792 to 0.795 for all biomarkers, but with a higher NRI for NT-proBNP. Extent of CAD and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T were not associated with spontaneous MI. The prediction of spontaneous MI beyond clinical characteristics and extent of CAD (C-index 0.647) was improved by both NT-proBNP (C-index 0.663, NRI 0.22) and GDF-15 (C-index 0.652, NRI 0.05). Conclusions Biomarker measurement on admission is feasible and provides incremental risk stratification in patients with STEMI treated with PPCI, with NT-proBNP and GDF-15 being most valuable due to the association with both CVD and spontaneous MI

Biomarkers for risk stratification of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention : Insights from the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes trial

Background The incremental prognostic value of admission measurements of biomarkers beyond clinical characteristics and extent of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is unclear. Methods Centrally analyzed plasma for biomarker measurements was available in 5,385 of the STEMI patients treated with PPCI in the PLATO trial. Extent of CAD was graded by operators in association with PPCI. We evaluated the prognostic value of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) beyond clinical characteristics and extent of CAD using Cox proportional hazards analyses, C-index, and net reclassification improvement (NRI). Outcomes were cardiovascular death (CVD) and spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI). Results Angiographic data on extent of CAD improved the prediction of CVD compared to clinical risk factors alone, increasing the C-index from 0.760 to 0.778, total NRI of 0.31. Biomarker information provided additional prognostic value for CVD beyond clinical risk factors and extent of CAD, C-indices ranging from 0.792 to 0.795 for all biomarkers, but with a higher NRI for NT-proBNP. Extent of CAD and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T were not associated with spontaneous MI. The prediction of spontaneous MI beyond clinical characteristics and extent of CAD (C-index 0.647) was improved by both NT-proBNP (C-index 0.663, NRI 0.22) and GDF-15 (C-index 0.652, NRI 0.05). Conclusions Biomarker measurement on admission is feasible and provides incremental risk stratification in patients with STEMI treated with PPCI, with NT-proBNP and GDF-15 being most valuable due to the association with both CVD and spontaneous MI

Therapeutic drug monitoring guided dosing versus standard dosing of alectinib in advanced ALK positive non-small cell lung cancer patients: Study protocol for an international, multicenter phase IV randomized controlled trial (ADAPT ALEC)

Background: Alectinib is first-line therapy in patients with stage IV non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) and an anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) fusion. A shorter median progression-free survival (mPFS) was observed when alectinib minimum plasma concentrations during steady state (C min,SS) were below 435 ng/mL. This may suggest that patients should have an alectinib C min,SS ≥ 435 ng/mL for a more favorable outcome. This potential target could be attained by using therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), i.e. adjusting the dose based on measured plasma trough concentrations. Hypothetically, this will increase mPFS, but this has not yet been evaluated in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Therefore, the ADAPT ALEC trial is designed, with the primary objective to prolong mPFS in NSCLC patients treated with alectinib by using TDM. Methods: ADAPT ALEC is a multicenter, phase IV RCT, in which patients aged ≥ 18 years with advanced ALK positive (+) NSCLC eligible for alectinib in daily care are enrolled. Participants will be randomized (1:1 ratio) into intervention arm A (TDM) or B (control), stratified by brain metastases and prior ALK treatments. Starting dose in both arms is the approved flat fixed dose of alectinib 600 mg taken twice daily with food. In case of alectinib C min,SS < 435 ng/mL, arm A will receive increased doses of alectinib till C min,SS≥ 435 ng/mL when considered tolerable. The primary outcome is mPFS, where progressive disease is defined according to RECIST v1.1 or all-cause death and assessed by CT-scans and MRI brain. Secondary endpoints are feasibility and tolerability of TDM, patient and physician adherence, overall response rate, median overall survival, intracranial PFS, quality of life, toxicity, alectinib-M4 concentrations and cost-effectiveness of TDM. Exploratory endpoints are circulating tumor DNA and body composition. Discussion: The ADAPT ALEC will show whether treatment outcomes of patients with advanced ALK+ NSCLC improve when using TDM-guided dosing of alectinib instead of fixed dosing. The results will provide high quality evidence for deciding whether TDM should be implemented as standard of care and this will have important consequences for the prescribing of alectinib. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT05525338