Efficacy and safety of tenecteplase in combination with enoxaparin, abciximab, or unfractionated heparin: The ASSENT-3 randomised trial in acute myocardial infarction

Background: Current fibrinolytic therapies fail to achieve optimum reperfusion in many patients. Low-molecular-weight heparins and platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors have shown the potential to improve pharmacological reperfusion therapy. We did a randomised, open-label trial to compare the efficacy and safety of tenecteplase plus enoxaparin or abciximab, with that of tenecteplase plus weight-adjusted unfractionated heparin in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Methods: 6095 patients with acute myocardial infarction of less than 6 h were randomly assigned one of three regimens: full-dose tenecteplase and enoxaparin for a maximum of 7 days (enoxaparin group; n=2040), half-dose tenecteplase with weight-adjusted low-dose unfractionated heparin and a 12-h infusion of abciximab (abciximab group; n=2017), or full-dose tenecteplase with weight-adjusted unfractionated heparin for 48 h (unfractionated heparin group; n=2038). The primary endpoints were the composites of 30-day mortality, in-hospital reinfarction, or in-hospital refractory ischaemia (efficacy endpoint), and the above endpoint plus in-hospital intracranial haemorrhage or in-hospital major bleeding complications (efficacy plus safety endpoint). Analysis was by intention to treat. Findings: There were significantly fewer efficacy endpoints in the enoxaparin and abciximab groups than in the unfractionated heparin group: 233/2037 (11.4%) versus 315/2038 (15.4%; relative risk 0.74 [95% CI 0.63-0.87], p=0.0002) for enoxaparin, and 223/2017 (11.1%) versus 315/2038 (15.4%; 0.72 [0.61-0.84], p<0.0001) for abciximab. The same was true for the efficacy plus safety endpoint: 280/2037 (13.7%) versus 347/2036 (17.0%; 0.81 [0.70-0.93], p=0.0037) for enoxaparin, and 287/2016 (14.2%) versus 347/2036 (17.0%; 0.84 [0.72-0.96], p=0.01416) for abciximab. Interpretation: The tenecteplase plus enoxaparin or abciximab regimens studied here reduce the frequency of ischaemic complications of an acute myocardial infarction. In light of its ease of administration, tenecteplase plus enoxaparin seems to be an attractive alternative reperfusion regimen that warrants further study

Vorapaxar in the secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events

Item does not contain fulltextBACKGROUND: Thrombin potently activates platelets through the protease-activated receptor PAR-1. Vorapaxar is a novel antiplatelet agent that selectively inhibits the cellular actions of thrombin through antagonism of PAR-1. METHODS: We randomly assigned 26,449 patients who had a history of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or peripheral arterial disease to receive vorapaxar (2.5 mg daily) or matching placebo and followed them for a median of 30 months. The primary efficacy end point was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke. After 2 years, the data and safety monitoring board recommended discontinuation of the study treatment in patients with a history of stroke owing to the risk of intracranial hemorrhage. RESULTS: At 3 years, the primary end point had occurred in 1028 patients (9.3%) in the vorapaxar group and in 1176 patients (10.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for the vorapaxar group, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 0.94; P<0.001). Cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or recurrent ischemia leading to revascularization occurred in 1259 patients (11.2%) in the vorapaxar group and 1417 patients (12.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.95; P=0.001). Moderate or severe bleeding occurred in 4.2% of patients who received vorapaxar and 2.5% of those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.43 to 1.93; P<0.001). There was an increase in the rate of intracranial hemorrhage in the vorapaxar group (1.0%, vs. 0.5% in the placebo group; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Inhibition of PAR-1 with vorapaxar reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or ischemic events in patients with stable atherosclerosis who were receiving standard therapy. However, it increased the risk of moderate or severe bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage. (Funded by Merck; TRA 2P-TIMI 50 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00526474.)

Ezetimibe added to statin therapy after acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND: Statin therapy reduces low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels and the risk of cardiovascular events, but whether the addition of ezetimibe, a nonstatin drug that reduces intestinal cholesterol absorption, can reduce the rate of cardiovascular events further is not known. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized trial involving 18,144 patients who had been hospitalized for an acute coronary syndrome within the preceding 10 days and had LDL cholesterol levels of 50 to 100 mg per deciliter (1.3 to 2.6 mmol per liter) if they were receiving lipid-lowering therapy or 50 to 125 mg per deciliter (1.3 to 3.2 mmol per liter) if they were not receiving lipid-lowering therapy. The combination of simvastatin (40 mg) and ezetimibe (10 mg) (simvastatin-ezetimibe) was compared with simvastatin (40 mg) and placebo (simvastatin monotherapy). The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina requiring rehospitalization, coronary revascularization ( 6530 days after randomization), or nonfatal stroke. The median follow-up was 6 years. RESULTS: The median time-weighted average LDL cholesterol level during the study was 53.7 mg per deciliter (1.4 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group, as compared with 69.5 mg per deciliter (1.8 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-monotherapy group (P<0.001). The Kaplan-Meier event rate for the primary end point at 7 years was 32.7% in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group, as compared with 34.7% in the simvastatin-monotherapy group (absolute risk difference, 2.0 percentage points; hazard ratio, 0.936; 95% confidence interval, 0.89 to 0.99; P = 0.016). Rates of pre-specified muscle, gallbladder, and hepatic adverse effects and cancer were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: When added to statin therapy, ezetimibe resulted in incremental lowering of LDL cholesterol levels and improved cardiovascular outcomes. Moreover, lowering LDL cholesterol to levels below previous targets provided additional benefit