Search

The global prevalence of atrial fibrillation is rapidly increasing, in large part due to the aging of the population. Atrial fibrillation is known to increase the risk of thromboembolic stroke by 5 times, but it has been evident for decades that well-managed anticoagulation therapy can greatly attenuate this risk. Despite advances in pharmacology (such as the shift from vitamin K antagonists to direct oral anticoagulants) that have increased the safety and convenience of chronic oral anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation, a preponderance of recent observational data indicates that protection from stroke is poorly achieved on a population basis. This outcomes deficit is multifactorial in origin, stemming from a combination of underprescribing of anticoagulants (often as a result of bleeding concerns by prescribers), limitations of the drugs themselves (drug-drug interactions, bioaccumulation in renal insufficiency, short half-lives that result in lapses in therapeutic effect, etc), and suboptimal patient adherence that results from lack of understanding/education, polypharmacy, fear of bleeding, forgetfulness, and socioeconomic barriers, among other obstacles. Often this adherence is not reported to treating clinicians, further subverting efforts to optimize care. A multidisciplinary, interprofessional panel of clinicians met during the 2023 International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis Congress to discuss these gaps in therapy, how they can be more readily recognized, and the potential for factor XI-directed anticoagulants to improve the safety and efficacy of stroke prevention. A full appreciation of this potential requires a reevaluation of traditional teaching about the "coagulation cascade" and decoupling the processes that result in (physiologic) hemostasis and (pathologic) thrombosis. The panel discussion is summarized and presented here., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: Phase II trials of asundexian were underpowered to detect important differences in bleeding., Objectives: The goal of this study was to obtain best estimates of effects of asundexian vs active control/placebo on major and clinically relevant nonmajor (CRNM) and all bleeding, describe most common sites of bleeding, and explore association between asundexian exposure and bleeding., Methods: We performed a pooled analysis of 3 phase II trials of asundexian in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), recent acute myocardial infarction (AMI), or stroke. Bleeding was defined according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) criteria., Results: In patients with AF (n = 755), both asundexian 20 mg and 50 mg once daily vs apixaban had fewer major/CRNM events (3 of 249; incidence rate [IR] per 100 patient-years 5.47 vs 1 of 254 [IR: not calculable] vs 6 of 250 [IR: 11.10]) and all bleeding (12 of 249 [IR: 22.26] vs 10 of 254 [IR: 18.21] vs 26 of 250 [IR: 50.56]). In patients with recent AMI or stroke (n = 3,409), asundexian 10 mg, 20 mg, and 50 mg once daily compared with placebo had similar rates of major/CRNM events (44 of 840 [IR: 7.55] vs 42 of 843 [IR: 7.04] vs 56 of 845 [IR: 9.63] vs 41 of 851 [IR: 6.99]) and all bleeding (107 of 840 [IR: 19.57] vs 123 of 843 [IR: 22.45] vs 130 of 845 [IR: 24.19] vs 129 of 851 [IR: 23.84]). Most common sites of major/CRNM bleeding with asundexian were gastrointestinal, respiratory, urogenital, and skin. There was no significant association between asundexian exposure and major/CRNM bleeding., Conclusions: Analyses of phase II trials involving >500 bleeds highlight the potential for improved safety of asundexian compared with apixaban and similar safety compared with placebo. Further evidence on the efficacy of asundexian awaits the results of ongoing phase III trials., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Academic steering committees and the trial sponsor (Bayer AG) were jointly responsible for the design and oversight of the individual PACIFIC trials. The sponsor coordinated the trial conduct and performed the statistical analyses. The PACIFIC trials were funded by Bayer AG. Dr. Eikelboom has received honoraria, fees, or research grants from Anthos, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, DSI, Idorsia, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, and Servier. Dr. Mundl is an employee of Bayer AG. Dr. Alexander has received research grants through Duke University from Artivion/CryoLife, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Ferring, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Humacyte, U.S. National Institutes of Health, and XaTek; and has received advisory board/consulting fees from AbbVie, Akros, Artivion/CryoLife, AtriCure, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ferring, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novostia, Pfizer, Portola, Quantum Genomics, Theravance, and Veralox. Dr. Caso has received advisory board and speaker fees from Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Boehringher Ingelheim, EVER Pharma, Daichi-Sankyo, and Bayer. Dr Connolly has received major research grants, consulting fees, and speaker fees from Sanofi, Janssen, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Bayer Pharmaceuticals Inc, Portola Pharmaceutical, Medtronic, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Servier. Drs Coppolecchia and Gebel are employees of Bayer AG. Dr Hart has received a stipend from Bayer AG for international coordination of the phase 2 PACIFIC-Stroke trial. Drs Holberg and Keller are employees of Bayer AG. Dr Piccini has received research funding from Bayer, AHA, and Boston Scientific; and has received consulting fees from Boston Scientific. Dr Shoamanesh has received grants and research support from CIHR, NIH, HSFC, British Heart Foundation, Medical Research Future Fund, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Daiichi-Sankyo, Octapharma, Servier, and Marta and Owen Boris Foundation; and has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Bioxodes, Daiichi-Sankyo, Servier, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Miriam Tamm, Thomas Viethen, and Dr Yassen are employees of Bayer AG. Dr Bonaca has received support from the AHA SFRN under award numbers 18SFRN3390085 (BWH-DH SFRN Center) and 18SFRN33960262 (BWH-DH Clinical Project); has modest stock holdings in Medtronic and Pfizer; and has received consulting fees from Audentes. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Levels of growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15), a cytokine secreted in response to cellular stress and inflammation, have been associated with multiple types of cardiovascular (CV) events. However, its comparative prognostic performance across different presentations of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) remains unknown., Methods and Results: An individual patient meta-analysis was performed using data pooled from eight trials including 53 486 patients. Baseline GDF-15 concentration was analyzed as a continuous variable and using established cutpoints (<1200 ng/L, 1200-1800 ng/L, > 1800 ng/L) to evaluate its prognostic performance for CV death/hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and their components using Cox models adjusted for clinical variables and established CV biomarkers. Analyses were further stratified on ASCVD status: acute coronary syndrome (ACS), stabilized after recent ACS, and stable ASCVD. Overall, higher GDF-15 concentration was significantly and independently associated with an increased rate of CV death/HHF and MACE (P < 0.001 for each). However, while GDF-15 showed a robust and consistent independent association with CV death and HHF across all presentations of ASCVD, its prognostic association with future myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke only remained significant in patients stabilized after recent ACS or with stable ASCVD [hazard ratio (HR): 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.17-1.31 and HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.05-1.28 for MI and stroke, respectively] and not in ACS (HR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.90-1.06 and HR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.39-1.92, respectively)., Conclusion: Growth differentiation factor 15 consistently adds prognostic information for CV death and HHF across the spectrum of ASCVD. GDF-15 also adds prognostic information for MI and stroke beyond clinical risk factors and cardiac biomarkers but not in the setting of ACS., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: E.T.K. reports receiving lecture fees from Astellas, Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli-Lilly Japan KK, Daiichi-Sankyo, Menarini, Ono Pharmaceutical, Ootsuka Pharmaceutical, MSD KK, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Bayer, Pfizer; consultant fee from Boehringer Ingelheim and Daiichi-Sankyo; research fund from Abbott, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Tanabe-Mitsubishi; D.M. reports grants to the Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Medicines Co., Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics, and Siemens; and consultant fees from InCardia, Inflammatix, Merck & Co, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics. D.M. is a member of the TIMI Study Group, which has received institutional research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Abbott, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, ARCA Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Intarcia, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Quark Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, The Medicines Company, and Zora Biosciences; J.G. is a member of the TIMI Study Group which has received institutional research grant support through Brigham and Women’s from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen; AstraZeneca; Critical Diagnostics, Daiichi-Sankyo; Eisai; Genzyme; Gilead; GlaxoSmithKline; Intarcia; Janssen Research and Development; Medicines Company; MedImmune; Merck; Novartis; Pfizer; Poxel; Roche Diagnostics; and Takeda; D.D.B. is supported by Harvard Catalyst KL2/CMeRIT (NIH/NCATS grant UL 1TR002541). He has received research grant support to his institution from AstraZeneca and Pfizer; consulting fees from AstraZeneca; and participates on a clinical endpoint committee for a study sponsored by Kowa Pharmaceuticals. M.B. has no conflict of interest; E.A.B. is a member of the TIMI Study Group which has received institutional research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Abbott, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Intarcia, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Quark Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Inc., The Medicines Company, Zora Biosciences. E.A.B. has received personal fees from Servier, Kowa, Medscape, Novo Nordisk, Amgen, PriMed and Merck; M.P.B. is the Executive Director of CPC, a non-profit academic research organization affiliated with the University of Colorado, that receives research grant/consulting funding from: Abbott, Agios, Alexion Pharma, Alnylam, Amgen, Angionetics, ARCA Biopharma, Array, AstraZeneca, Atentiv, Audentes, Bayer, Better Therapeutics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardiol Therapeutics, CellResearch, Cook Medical, Cook, CSL Behring, Eidos Therapeutics, EP Trading Co, Esperion Therapeutics, EverlyWell, Faraday, Fortress Biotech, HDL Therapeutics, Heartflow, Hummingbird Bioscience, Insmed, Janssen, Kowa Research, Lexicon, Merck, Medtronic, Moderna, Novate Medical, NovoNordisk, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PPD Development, Prairie Education and Research, Prothena Ciosciences, Regeneron, Regio Biosciences, Sanifit Therapeutics, Sanofi, Smith and Nephew, Stealth BioTherapeutics, University of Colorado, Worldwide Clinical Trials, Wraser, Yale Cardiovascular Research Group. M.P.B. also reports stock in Medtronic and Pfizer and consulting fees from Audent; C.P.C. reports research grants from: Amgen, Better Therapeutics, Boehringer-Ingelheim (BI), Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Consulting fees from Aegerion/Amryt, Alnylam, Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, Ascendia, BI, BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Lexicon, Merck, Pfizer, Rhoshan, and Sanofi. C.P.C. serve on Data and Safety Monitoring Boards for the Veteran’s Administration, Applied Therapeutics and NovoNordisk; J.A.d.L reports grant support from Roche Diagnostics and Abbott Diagnostics, consulting fees from Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, Siemen’s Health Care Diagnostics, Beckman Coulter, and Quidel; R.P.G. reports clinical trials/research support from Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, honoraria for Lectures/CME Programs for Amgen, Centrix, Daiichi Sankyo, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Medical Education Resources (MER), Medscape, Menarini, Merck, Pfizer, SAJA Pharmaceuticals, Servier, Shanghai Medical Telescope, Voxmedia, Consultant fee from Amarin, Amgen, Boston Scientific, CryoLife, CSL Behring, CVS Caremark, Daiichi Sankyo, Esperion, Gilead, Hengrui, Inari, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, PhaseBio Pharmaceuticals, St. Lukes, Samsung; P.J. reports research support from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Inc., AstraZeneca, LP, Daiichi-Sankyo, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co., Inc., Regeneron, Roche Diagnostics Corporation, and Siemens Healthineers; T.K. has been a paid consultant for and/or received honoraria payments from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Edwards, Novartis, Pharmacosmos, and Vifor and has received research support from Vifor; K.N. reports research funding through Duke University from Roche Diagnostics; Consulting honoraria from Beckman-Coulter; M.O’. reports Grants via Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Amgen, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Intarcia, Merck, Pfizer. Honararia from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Janssen; M.A.P. reports Research Grant Support from Novartis; consultant to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly Alliance, DalCor, GlaxoSmithKline, Lexicon, NHLBI CONNECTs (Master Protocol Committee), Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Peerbridge and Sanofi; and has equity in DalCor; N.R. has no conflic of interest; S.D.W. reports research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Janssen, and Merck. He reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boston Clinical Research Institute, ICON Clinical, Novo Nordisk. Spouse, Dr. Caroline Fox is an employee of Merck. S.D.W. is a member of the TIMI Study Group, which has received institutional research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from: Abbott, Amgen, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., BRAHMS, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Intarcia, Janssen, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Poxel, Quark Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Takeda, The Medicines Company, Zora Biosciences; S.D.W. has been a paid consultant for and has received research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, and has received honoraria payments from Roche Diagnostics. T.K. and S.D.W. hold patents (EP 2047275 B1 and US 8951742) and have a licensing contract with Roche Diagnostics related to GDF-15; E.B. reports research grants through his institution from Astra Zeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck and Novartis, and consultancies with Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim/Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardurion, Novo Nordisk, and Verve; M.S. report research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Amgen; Anthos Therapeutics; AstraZeneca; Bayer; Daiichi-Sankyo; Eisai; Intarcia; Ionis; Medicines Company; MedImmune; Merck; Novartis; Pfizer; Quark Pharmaceuticals. Consulting for: Althera; Amgen; Anthos Therapeutics; AstraZeneca; Beren Therapeutics; Bristol-Myers Squibb; DalCor; Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories; Fibrogen; Intarcia; Merck; Moderna; Novo Nordisk; Silence Therapeutics. Additionally, M.S. is a member of the TIMI Study Group, which has also received institutional research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Abbott, ARCA Biopharma, Inc., Janssen Research and Development, LLC, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Inc., Softcell Medical Limited, Regeneron, Roche, and Zora Biosciences., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), peripheral artery disease (PAD) is associated with higher rates of stroke and bleeding. Both higher dose edoxaban (60/30 mg) and lower dose edoxaban (30/15 mg) were non-inferior to warfarin for stroke and systemic embolism (SSE) and significantly reduced major bleeding in AF patients in the global study to assess the safety and effectiveness of edoxaban vs standard practice of dosing with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48) trial. Whether the efficacy and safety of these dosing strategies vs. warfarin are consistent in patients with AF and PAD has not been described., Methods and Results: Of 21 105 patients with AF randomized to warfarin, edoxaban 60/30 mg, or edoxaban 30/15 mg, 841 were identified with PAD. Endpoints included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), SSE, and major bleeding. Patients with PAD had higher risk of MACEs [adjusted hazard ratio (HRadj) 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12-1.57, P = 0.001] and cardiovascular (CV) death (HRadj 1.49, 95% CI 1.21-1.83, P &lt; 0.001) than those without PAD, but not major bleeding. The efficacy of edoxaban 60/30 mg vs. warfarin was consistent regardless of PAD (SSE HR; PAD 1.16, 95% CI 0.42-3.20; no-PAD 0.86, 95% CI 0.74-1.02, P-interaction 0.57) as was major bleeding (PAD 0.96, 95% CI 0.54-1.70; no-PAD 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.91, P-interaction 0.54). Edoxaban 30/15 mg was inferior for SSE, with significant heterogeneity when stratified by PAD status (P-interaction 0.039)., Conclusion: Patients with AF and PAD are at heightened risk of MACEs and CV death vs. those without PAD. The efficacy and safety of edoxaban 60/30 mg vs. warfarin in AF are consistent regardless of PAD; however, edoxaban 30/15 mg is inferior for stroke prevention in AF patients with PAD. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00781391., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: We assessed the impact of the proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor evolocumab on acute arterial events across all vascular territories, including coronary, cerebrovascular, and peripheral vascular beds, in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD)., Methods and Results: In the FOURIER trial, 27 564 patients with stable ASCVD on statin therapy were randomly assigned to evolocumab or placebo. Acute arterial events were a composite of acute coronary (coronary heart disease death, myocardial infarction, or urgent coronary revascularization), cerebrovascular (ischaemic stroke, transient ischaemic attack, or urgent cerebral revascularization), or peripheral vascular (acute limb ischaemia, major amputation, or urgent peripheral revascularization) events. Of the 2210 first acute arterial events, 74% were coronary, 22% were cerebrovascular, and 4% were peripheral vascular. Evolocumab reduced first acute arterial events by 19% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.81 [95% confidence interval 0.74-0.88]; P < 0.001), with significant individual reductions in acute coronary (HR 0.83 [0.75-0.91]), cerebrovascular (HR 0.77 [0.65-0.92]), and peripheral vascular (HR 0.58 [0.38-0.88]) events. There were 3437 total events (first plus recurrent), with evolocumab reducing total events by 24% (incidence rate ratio 0.76 [0.69-0.85]). The magnitude of reduction in acute arterial events with evolocumab numerically increased over time, with a 16% reduction (HR 0.84 [0.75-0.95]) in the first year followed by a 24% reduction (HR 0.76 [0.67-0.85]) thereafter., Conclusion: The addition of the PCSK9 inhibitor evolocumab to statin therapy reduced acute arterial events across all vascular territories with a robust effect over time, indicating a pan-vascular impact of aggressive lipid-lowering therapy on these acute and clinically meaningful events., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01764633., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2021. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background Patients with peripheral artery disease are at increased risk of both major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and limb events. The pathobiology of limb events is likely multifactorial. Observational studies suggest a benefit of statin therapy for reducing the risk of limb ischemic events while randomized trials demonstrate a benefit with more potent antithrombotic therapies, particularly those targeting thrombin. Whether the effects of these therapeutic pathways are independent and complementary is not known. Methods and Results The TRA 2°P-TIMI 50 (Thrombin Receptor Antagonist in Secondary Prevention of Atherothrombotic Ischemic Events-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 50) trial demonstrated that vorapaxar significantly reduced MACEs and limb events. The purpose of the current analysis was to evaluate the association of statin use and intensity and the occurrence of MACEs and limb events in 5845 patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease randomized in TRA 2°P-TIMI 50 and then to understand whether statin use modified the benefits of vorapaxar for MACEs or limb ischemic events. We found that statin therapy was associated with significantly lower risk of MACEs (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66-0.89; P <0.001) and limb ischemic events (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.60-0.89; P =0.002). The benefit of vorapaxar for reducing MACEs and limb events was consistent regardless of background statin ( P -interaction=0.715 and 0.073, respectively). Event rates were lowest in patients receiving the combination of statin therapy and vorapaxar. Conclusions In conclusion, statin use and intensity is associated with significantly lower rates of MACEs and limb ischemic events. Thrombin inhibition with vorapaxar is effective regardless of background statin therapy. These results suggest that targeting both lipid and thrombotic risk in peripheral artery disease is necessary in order to optimize outcomes.

Aims: In this secondary analysis of the VOYAGER trial, rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice/day plus aspirin 100 mg/day was assessed in older adults. Advanced age is associated with elevated bleeding risk and unfavourable net benefit for dual antiplatelet therapy in chronic coronary artery disease. The risk-benefit of low-dose rivaroxaban in patients ≥75 years with peripheral artery disease (PAD) after lower extremity revascularization (LER) has not been described., Methods and Results: The primary endpoint was a composite of acute limb ischaemia, major amputation, myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, or cardiovascular death. The principal safety outcome was thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) major bleeding analysed by the pre-specified age cut-off of 75 years. Of 6564 patients randomized, 1330 (20%) were >75 years. Absolute 3-year Kaplan-Meier cumulative incidence rates for primary efficacy (23.4% vs. 19.0%) and safety (3.5% vs. 1.5%) endpoints were higher in elderly vs. non-elderly patients. Efficacy of rivaroxaban (P-interaction 0.83) and safety (P-interaction 0.38) was consistent irrespective of age. The combination of intracranial and fatal bleeding was not increased in patients >75 years (2 rivaroxaban vs. 8 placebo). Overall, benefits (absolute risk reduction 3.8%, number needed to treat 26 for the primary endpoint) exceeded risks (absolute risk increase 0.81%, number needed to harm 123 for TIMI major bleeding)., Conclusion: Patients ≥75 years with PAD are at both heightened ischaemic and bleeding risk after LER. No excess harm with respect to major, intracranial or fatal bleeding was seen in older patients yet numerically greater absolute benefits were observed. This suggests that low-dose rivaroxaban combined with aspirin should be considered in PAD after LER regardless of age., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2021. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background Coronary stent type and risk of stent thrombosis remain important factors affecting recommended duration of dual antiplatelet therapy. We investigated the efficacy and safety of long-term ticagrelor in patients with prior coronary stenting enrolled in the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 54) trial. Methods and Results Patients in PEGASUS-TIMI 54 had a myocardial infarction 1 to 3 year prior and were randomized 1:1:1 to ticagrelor 60 or 90 mg BID or placebo. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (major adverse cardiovascular events). Stent thrombosis was prospectively adjudicated (Academic Research Consortium definition). Baseline characteristics were compared by most recent stent type (bare metal versus drug-eluting stent and first- versus later-generation drug-eluting stent). Treatment arms were compared using Cox proportional hazards models. Of 21 162 patients randomized, 80% (n=16 891) had prior coronary stenting. Following randomization, myocardial infarction was the most frequent ischemic event in patients with prior stenting in the placebo arm, occurring in 5.2% of patients (Type 1: 4.1%), followed by cardiovascular death (2.3%), stroke (1.7%), and stent thrombosis (0.9%). Ticagrelor pooled reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (7.0% versus 8.0%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-96) regardless of stent type (bare metal stent versus drug-eluting stent: p interaction =0.767; first versus later generation: p interaction =0.940). The rate of any stent thrombosis was numerically lower with ticagrelor pooled (0.7% versus 0.9%; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.50-1.05) and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction major bleeding was increased (HR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.90-3.68). Conclusions Long-term ticagrelor reduces major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with prior myocardial infarction and coronary stenting regardless of stent type, with the benefit driven predominantly by reduction in de novo events. Nonfatal major bleeding is increased with ticagrelor. Registration Information clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT01225562.

Aims: Peripheral artery disease (PAD), often treated with lower extremity revascularization, is associated with risk of major atherothrombotic vascular events (acute limb ischemia [ALI], major non-traumatic lower-limb amputation, myocardial infarction [MI], ischemic stroke, cardiovascular death). This study aims to assess healthcare resource utilization and costs of such events among patients with PAD after revascularization., Materials and Methods: Patients aged ≥50 years with PAD who were treated with lower-extremity revascularization were identified from Optum Clinformatics Data Mart claims database (01/2014-06/2019). The first lower extremity revascularization after PAD diagnosis was defined as the index date. Patients had ≥6 months of health plan enrollment before the index date. Patients were followed until the earliest of 1) end of enrollment or data; 2) diagnosis of atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism; or 3) oral anticoagulant use. All-cause healthcare resource use per-patient-year was compared before and after a major atherothrombotic vascular event post-revascularization among those with an event. Additionally, event-related healthcare costs per-patient-year were reported for each event type., Results: Of the 38,439 PAD patients meeting the study criteria, 6,675 (17.4%) had a major atherothrombotic vascular event. On average, patients were observed for 7.3 months before an event and 6.2 months after an event. Patients with an event had significantly higher all-cause healthcare resource use versus similar metrics pre-event (e.g. inpatient visits among those with ALI: 3.5 ± 5.8 post-event vs. 2.0 ± 8.1 pre-event, p  < .05). Event-related costs ranged from $57,825±$131,810 per-patient-year for ischemic stroke to $108,302±$150,168 for major non-traumatic lower-limb amputation., Limitations: Data do not contain clinical information. Additionally, results are limited to commercially insured and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries., Conclusion: Patients with PAD who experience major atherothrombotic vascular events post-revascularization have considerably higher healthcare resource use and costs compared with similar metrics pre-event. Therefore, reducing the rate of such events could reduce overall healthcare costs for this population.

Background: Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) are at heightened risk of cardiovascular complications. The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduces the risk for hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) and kidney events in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. An increased risk of amputation has been observed with canagliflozin in 1 previous trial. We examined cardiovascular and kidney efficacy and the risk of limb-related events in patients with and without PAD in an exploratory analysis., Methods: A total of 17 160 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, including 1025 (6%) with PAD, were randomized. Key efficacy outcomes were MACE (cardiovascular [CV] death, myocardial infarction, stroke), CV death/HHF, and progression of kidney disease. Amputations, peripheral revascularization, and limb ischemic adverse events were site-reported and categorized by a blinded reviewer., Results: Patients in the placebo arm with PAD versus those without tended to have higher adjusted risk of CV death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.23 [95% CI, 0.97-1.56], P =0.094) and significantly higher adjusted risk of CV death/HHF (adjusted HR, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.21-2.12], P =0.0010) and progression of kidney disease (adjusted HR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.13 - 2.03], P =0.0058), and limb adverse events (adjusted HR, 8.37, P <0.001). The relative risk reductions with dapagliflozin for CV death/HHF (HR, 0.86, PAD; HR, 0.82, no-PAD; P -interaction=0.79) and progression of kidney disease (HR, 0.78, PAD; HR, 0.76, no-PAD; P -interaction=0.84) were consistent regardless of PAD. There were 560 patients who had at least 1 limb ischemic event, 454 patients with at least 1 peripheral revascularization, and 236 patients with at least 1 amputation, with a total of 407 amputations reported. Overall, there were no significant differences in any limb outcome with dapagliflozin versus placebo including limb ischemic adverse events (HR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.90-1.26]) and amputation (HR, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.84-1.40]), with no significant interactions by a history of PAD versus not ( P -interactions=0.30 and 0.093, respectively)., Conclusions: Patients with versus without PAD are at a higher risk of CV death of CV death, HHF, and kidney outcomes, and have a consistent benefits for CV death/HHF and progression of kidney disease with dapagliflozin. Patients with PAD had a higher risk of limb events, with no consistent pattern of incremental risk observed with dapagliflozin. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01730534.

Background: Sodium glucose transporter-2 inhibitors reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Because of their baseline risk, patients with previous myocardial infarction (MI) may derive even greater benefit from sodium glucose transporter-2 inhibitor therapy., Methods: DECLARE-TIMI 58 (Dapagliflozin Effect on Cardiovascular Events-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 58) randomized 17 160 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and either established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (n=6974) or multiple risk factors (n=10 186) to dapagliflozin versus placebo. The 2 primary end points were composite of MACE (cardiovascular death, MI, or ischemic stroke) and the composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure. Those with previous MI (n=3584) made up a prespecified subgroup of interest., Results: In patients with previous MI (n=3584), dapagliflozin reduced the relative risk of MACE by 16% and the absolute risk by 2.6% (15.2% versus 17.8%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; P=0.039), whereas there was no effect in patients without previous MI (7.1% versus 7.1%; HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.88-1.13; P=0.97; P for interaction for relative difference=0.11; P for interaction for absolute risk difference=0.048), including in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease but no history of MI (12.6% versus 12.8%; HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.81-1.19). There seemed to be a greater benefit for MACE within 2 years after the last acute event ( P for interaction trend=0.007). The relative risk reductions in cardiovascular death/hospitalization for heart failure were more similar, but the absolute risk reductions tended to be greater: 1.9% (8.6% versus 10.5%; HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65-1.00; P=0.046) and 0.6% (3.9% versus 4.5%; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.00; P=0.055) in patients with and without previous MI, respectively ( P interaction for relative difference=0.69; P interaction for absolute risk difference=0.010)., Conclusions: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and previous MI are at high risk of MACE and cardiovascular death/hospitalization for heart failure. Dapagliflozin appears to robustly reduce the risk of both composite outcomes in these patients. Future studies should aim to confirm the large clinical benefits with sodium glucose transporter-2 inhibitors we observed in patients with previous MI., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01730534.

Background: The Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Risk Score for Secondary Prevention (TRS2°P), a 0-to-9-point system based on the presence/absence of 9 clinical factors, was developed to classify the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (a composite of cardiovascular death, recurrent myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke) among patients with a recent myocardial infarction. Its performance has not been examined internationally outside of a clinical trial setting., Methods and Results: We evaluated the performance of TRS2°P for predicting MACE in 53 599 patients with recent myocardial infarction in 5 international cohorts from New Zealand, South Korea, Sweden, and the United States participating in the Chronic Kidney Disease Prognosis Consortium. Overall, there were 19 444 cases of MACE across 5 cohorts over a mean follow-up of 5 years, and the overall MACE rate ranged from 5.0 to 18.4 (per 100 person-years). The TRS2°P showed modest calibration (Brier score ranged from 0.144 to 0.173) and discrimination (C-statistics >0.61 in all studies except 1 from Korea with 0.55) across cohorts relative to its original Brier score of 0.098 and C-statistic of 0.67 in the derived data set. Although there was some heterogeneity across cohorts, the 9 predictors in the TRS2°P were generally associated with higher MACE risk, with strongest associations observed (meta-analyzed adjusted hazard ratio 1.6-1.7) for history of heart failure, age ≥75 years, and prior stroke, followed by peripheral artery disease, kidney dysfunction, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension (hazard ratio 1.3-1.4). Prior coronary bypass graft surgery and smoking did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio ≈1.1)., Conclusions: TRS2°P, a simple scoring system with 9 routine clinical factors, was modestly predictive of secondary events when applied in patients with recent myocardial infarction from diverse clinical and geographic settings., (© 2018 The Authors and Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley.)

Background: Patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI) and multivessel coronary disease (MVD) are at high risk for recurrent coronary events., Objectives: The authors investigated the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus placebo in patients with MVD in the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 54) trial., Methods: Patients with a history of MI 1 to 3 years before inclusion in the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 trial were stratified in a pre-specified analysis based on the presence of MVD. The effect of ticagrelor (60 mg and 90 mg) on the composite of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE]), as well as the composite of coronary death, MI, or stent thrombosis (coronary events), and on TIMI major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and fatal bleeding were evaluated over a median of 33 months., Results: A total of 12,558 patients (59.4%) had MVD. In the placebo arm, compared with patients without MVD, those with MVD were at higher risk for MACE (9.37% vs. 8.57%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR adj ]: 1.24; p = 0.026) and for coronary events (7.67% vs. 5.34%, HR adj : 1.49; p = 0.0005). In patients with MVD, ticagrelor reduced the risk of MACE (7.94% vs. 9.37%, HR: 0.82; p = 0.004) and coronary events (6.02% vs. 7.67%, HR: 0.76; p < 0.0001), including a 36% reduction in coronary death (HR: 0.64; 95% confidence interval: 0.48 to 0.85; p = 0.002). In this subgroup, ticagrelor increased the risk of TIMI major bleeding (2.52% vs. 1.08%, HR: 2.67; p < 0.0001), but not ICH or fatal bleeds., Conclusions: Patients with prior MI and MVD are at increased risk of MACE and coronary events, and experience substantial relative and absolute risk reductions in both outcomes with long-term ticagrelor treatment relative to those without MVD. Ticagrelor increases the risk of TIMI major bleeding, but not ICH or fatal bleeding. For patients with prior MI and MVD, ticagrelor is an effective option for long-term antiplatelet therapy. (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events [e.g., Death From Heart or Vascular Disease, Heart Attack, or Stroke] in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin [PEGASUS]; NCT01225562)., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In patients with a myocardial infarction (MI) 1 to 3 years earlier, treatment with ticagrelor + low-dose aspirin (ASA) reduces the risk of cardiovascular (CV) death, MI, or stroke compared with low-dose aspirin alone, but at an increased risk of major bleeding., Objectives: The authors evaluated cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor + low-dose ASA in patients with prior MI within the prior 3 years., Methods: The authors performed a prospective economic substudy alongside the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 54) trial, which randomized 21,162 patients to ASA alone, ticagrelor 60 mg twice daily + low-dose ASA, or ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily + low-dose ASA. Medical resource use data were collected over a median 33-month follow-up. Costs were assessed from the U.S. health care system perspective. In-trial data relating to survival, utility, and costs were combined with lifetime projections to evaluate lifetime cost-effectiveness of the Food and Drug Administration-approved lower-dose ticagrelor regimen (60 mg twice daily)., Results: Hospitalization costs were similar for ticagrelor 60 mg and placebo ($2,262 vs. $2,333; 95% confidence interval for difference -$303 to $163; p = 0.54); after inclusion of a daily ticagrelor 60 mg cost of $10.52, total costs were higher for ticagrelor ($10,016 vs. $2,333; 95% CI: $7,441 to $7,930; p < 0.001). In-trial quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were similar (2.28 vs. 2.27; p = 0.34). Over a lifetime horizon, ticagrelor was associated with QALY gains of 0.078 and incremental costs of $7,435, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $94,917/QALY gained. Several high-risk groups had more favorable ICERs, including patients with >1 prior MI, multivessel disease, diabetes, renal dysfunction (all with ICERs $50,000 to $70,000/QALY gained), patients age <75 years (ICER = $44,779/QALY gained), and patients with peripheral artery disease (ICER = $13,427/QALY gained)., Conclusions: For patients with a history of MI >1 year previously, long-term treatment with ticagrelor 60 mg + low-dose ASA yields a cost-effectiveness ratio suggesting intermediate value based on current guidelines. Ticagrelor appears to provide higher value for patients in several recognized high-risk subgroups. (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events [e.g., Death From Heart or Vascular Disease, Heart Attack, or Stroke] in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin [PEGASUS]; NCT01225562)., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI) are at long-term heightened risk for recurrent ischemic events. Several large randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the benefit of more intensive antiplatelet strategies for long-term secondary prevention of cardiovascular death, recurrent MI, and stroke in patients with a history of MI at a cost of increased bleeding. The bleeding risk associated with long-term intensive antiplatelet strategies requires careful patient selection and involvement of patients in shared decision making regarding risks and benefits of therapy. Clinical characteristics, adherence to therapy, and integrated risk scores may aid clinicians in translating clinical trials into individualized therapy., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: In the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 trial, treatment with ticagrelor reduced the incidence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke by 15% to 16% among stable patients compared with placebo. However, more patients prematurely discontinued treatment with ticagrelor than with placebo., Objective: To investigate the reasons and timing of discontinuation of treatment with ticagrelor among stable patients prior myocardial infarction., Design, Setting, and Participants: In the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 trial, 21 162 stable outpatients with prior myocardial infarction were randomly assigned to 90 mg of ticagrelor twice daily, 60 mg of ticagrelor twice daily, or placebo, with all of the patients receiving a low dose of aspirin. These participants were followed up for a median of 33 months (study start date: October 2010; completion date: December 2014). Discontinuation of treatment was evaluated by treatment arm, cause, and timing. This analysis was initiated in May 2015., Main Outcome and Measure: Discontinuation of treatment., Results: Over 33 months, 32%, 29%, and 21% of patients receiving 90 mg of ticagrelor, 60 mg of ticagrelor, and placebo, respectively, discontinued treatment (P < .001). Discontinuation of treatment due to an adverse event occurred in 19%, 16%, and 9% of patients, respectively (P < .001). The most frequent adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment were bleeding (with Kaplan-Meier event rates of 7.8%, 6.2%, and 1.5% of patients, respectively; P < .001) and dyspnea (6.5%, 4.6%, and 0.8% of patients, respectively; P < .001). Eighty-six percent of bleeding events that led to the discontinuation of treatment with ticagrelor were nonmajor, and 86% of adverse events due to dyspnea that led to discontinuation of treatment with ticagrelor were mild or moderate in severity. The discontinuation rates are annualized for patients who received 90 mg of ticagrelor twice daily (hazard ratio [HR], 2.00 [95% CI, 1.84-2.16] for the first year; HR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.00-1.26] for the second and third years) and patients who received 60 mg of ticagrelor twice daily (HR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.46-1.73] for the first year; HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.06-1.32] for the second and third years) compared with patients who received placebo., Conclusions and Relevance: When initiated among stable patients with prior myocardial infarction, discontinuation of treatment with ticagrelor was driven primarily by nonserious adverse events occurring primarily early after randomization. For patients completing 1 year of treatment, the subsequent discontinuation rate was low. These data demonstrate how adverse events considered "nonserious" by traditional trial criteria may have an effect on quality of life and, thus, may precipitate the discontinuation of treatments and underscore the need for patient education and counseling on the timing and nature of adverse effects with the aim of improving adherence when appropriate., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01225562.

Background: Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) are at heightened risk of acute limb ischemia (ALI), a morbid event that may result in limb loss. We investigated the causes, sequelae, and predictors of ALI in a contemporary population with symptomatic PAD and whether protease-activated receptor 1 antagonism with vorapaxar reduced ALI overall and by type., Methods and Results: The Trial to Assess the Effects of Vorapaxar in Preventing Heart Attack and Stroke in Patients With Atherosclerosis-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 50 (TRA2°P-TIMI 50) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of vorapaxar in stable patients, including 3787 with symptomatic PAD. ALI was a prespecified adjudicated end point using a formal definition. A total of 150 ALI events occurred in 108 patients during follow-up (placebo 3-year rate, 3.9%; 1.3% annualized). For patients with symptomatic PAD, previous peripheral revascularization, smoking, and the ankle-brachial index were predictive of ALI. The majority of ALI events occurred as a result of surgical graft thrombosis (56%), followed by native vessel in situ thrombosis (27%). Stent thrombosis and thromboembolism caused ALI in 13% and 5%, respectively. Amputation occurred in 17.6% presenting with ALI. Vorapaxar reduced first ALI events by 41% (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.86; P=0.006) and total ALI events by 41% (94 versus 56 events; risk ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-0.93; P=0.022). The efficacy of vorapaxar was consistent across types of ALI., Conclusions: In selected patients with symptomatic PAD and without atrial fibrillation, ALI occurs at a rate of 1.3%/y, is most frequently caused by acute bypass graft thrombosis or in situ thrombosis of a diseased vessel, and often results in limb loss. Vorapaxar reduces ALI in patients with symptomatic PAD with consistency across type, including PAD resulting from surgical graft thrombosis and in-situ thrombosis., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00526474., (© 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: Vorapaxar antagonizes protease-activated receptor 1, the primary receptor for thrombin on human platelets, and reduces recurrent thrombotic events in stable patients with a previous myocardial infarction (MI). We wished to determine whether the efficacy and safety of antiplatelet therapy with vorapaxar was modified by concurrent thienopyridine use., Methods and Results: The Thrombin Receptor Antagonist in Secondary Prevention of Atherothrombotic Ischemic Events-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 50 (TRA 2°P-TIMI 50) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of vorapaxar in 26,449 patients with previous atherothrombosis. This prespecified analysis included 16,897 patients who qualified with a MI in the preceding 2 weeks to 12 months and was restricted to patients without a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack given its contraindication in that population. Randomization was stratified on the basis of planned thienopyridine use. Thienopyridine was planned at randomization in 12,410 (73%). Vorapaxar significantly reduced the composite of cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke in comparison with placebo regardless of planned thienopyridine therapy (planned thienopyridine, hazard ratio, 0.80, 0.70-0.91, P<0.001; no planned thienopyridine, hazard ratio, 0.75; 0.60-0.94, P=0.011; P-interaction=0.67). Findings were similar when patients were stratified by actual thienopyridine use at baseline (P-interaction=0.82) and through 18 months (P-interaction=0.44). Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) moderate or severe bleeding risk was increased with vorapaxar and was not significantly altered by planned thienopyridine (planned, hazard ratio, 1.50; 1.18-1.89, P<0.001; no planned, hazard ratio, 1.90, 1.17-3.07, P=0.009; P-interaction=0.37) or actual thienopyridine use (P-interaction=0.24)., Conclusions: Vorapaxar reduced cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke in stable patients with a history of previous MI, whether treated concomitantly with a thienopyridine or not. The relative risk of moderate or severe bleeding was similarly increased irrespective of thienopyridine use., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00526474., (© 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: Vorapaxar reduces cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke in patients with previous MI while increasing bleeding. Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are at high risk of recurrent thrombotic events despite standard therapy and may derive particular benefit from antithrombotic therapies. The Thrombin Receptor Antagonist in Secondary Prevention of Atherothrombotic Ischemic Events-TIMI 50 trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of vorapaxar in patients with stable atherosclerosis., Methods and Results: We examined the efficacy of vorapaxar in patients with and without DM who qualified for the trial with a previous MI. Because vorapaxar is contraindicated in patients with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack, the analysis (n=16 896) excluded such patients. The primary end point of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke occurred more frequently in patients with DM than in patients without DM (rates in placebo group: 14.3% versus 7.6%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.47; P<0.001). In patients with DM (n=3623), vorapaxar significantly reduced the primary end point (11.4% versus 14.3%; hazard ratio, 0.73 [95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.89]; P=0.002) with a number needed to treat to avoid 1 major cardiovascular event of 29. The incidence of moderate/severe bleeding was increased with vorapaxar in patients with DM (4.4% versus 2.6%; hazard ratio, 1.60 [95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.40]). However, net clinical outcome integrating these 2 end points (efficacy and safety) was improved with vorapaxar (hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.93])., Conclusions: In patients with previous MI and DM, the addition of vorapaxar to standard therapy significantly reduced the risk of major vascular events with greater potential for absolute benefit in this group at high risk of recurrent ischemic events., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00526474., (© 2015 The Authors.)

Background: Vorapaxar, a novel antiplatelet therapy, reduces thrombotic events in patients with a history of myocardial infarction (MI) or peripheral artery disease (PAD); however, because of an increased risk of intracranial hemorrhage, it is contraindicated in patients with a history of stroke., Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of new ischemic stroke and subsequent death or intracerebral hemorrhage in patients with MI or PAD and no cerebrovascular disease (CVD) treated with vorapaxar., Methods: The TRA 2 °P-TIMI 50 (Trial to Assess the Effects of Vorapaxar in Preventing Heart Attack and Stroke in Patients With Atherosclerosis-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 50) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of vorapaxar 2.5 mg daily in 26,449 patients with atherosclerosis, stratified by qualifying disease (MI, PAD, or CVD). A total of 20,170 patients with MI/PAD, but no CVD, were enrolled., Results: In patients with MI/PAD and no prior stroke or transient ischemic attack, vorapaxar reduced first ischemic stroke (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43 to 0.75; p < 0.001). The risk of hemorrhagic conversion after stroke (HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.49 to 2.91; p = 0.70) or death (HR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.57 to 2.07; p = 0.79) during follow-up was not significantly increased with vorapaxar in patients who had a new ischemic stroke (n = 204). Although hemorrhagic stroke was increased (HR: 2.79, 95% CI: 1.00 to 7.73; p = 0.049), overall stroke was significantly reduced (HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.52 to 0.87; p = 0.002)., Conclusions: Vorapaxar reduces ischemic stroke in patients with MI or PAD and no known CVD. There does not appear to be a significant increase in the risk of hemorrhagic conversion or death in patients who experienced a first ischemic stroke on vorapaxar. Although primary hemorrhagic stroke is increased, vorapaxar reduces the total incidence of stroke. (Trial to Assess the Effects of Vorapaxar (SCH 530348; MK-5348) in Preventing Heart Attack and Stroke in Patients With Atherosclerosis [TRA 2 °P-TIMI 50]; NCT00526474)., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose: Vorapaxar is an antiplatelet agent that antagonizes thrombin-mediated activation of the protease-activated receptor-1 on platelets. We tested the efficacy and safety of vorapaxar in a prespecified analysis in the stroke subcohort from a multinational, randomized, placebo-controlled trial., Methods: We randomly assigned patients with prior atherothrombosis (myocardial infarction, peripheral artery disease, or ischemic stroke) to receive vorapaxar (2.5 mg daily) or placebo added to standard antiplatelet therapy. Patients who qualified with stroke (N=4883) had a history of ischemic stroke in the prior 2 weeks to 12 months. The primary end point was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or any stroke., Results: The qualifying stroke was classified as large vessel in 35%, small vessel in 47%, and other/unknown in 18%. In the stroke cohort, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke through 3 years was not reduced with vorapaxar versus placebo (13.0% vs 11.7%; hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.25), including recurrent ischemic stroke (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-1.25). There were no significant differences in the effect of vorapaxar based on the type or timing of the qualifying stroke. Intracranial hemorrhage at 3 years was increased with vorapaxar (2.5% vs 1.0%; hazard ratio, 2.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.46-4.36)., Conclusions: In patients with prior ischemic stroke who receive standard antiplatelet therapy, adding vorapaxar increased the risk of intracranial hemorrhage without an improvement in major vascular events, including ischemic stroke. These findings add to the accumulating evidence establishing important risks with combination antiplatelet therapy in patients with prior stroke. Clinical Trial Registration Information- http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00526474.

Background: Ticagrelor reduces ischemic risk in patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI). It remains unclear whether ischemic risk and the benefits of prolonged P2Y12 inhibition in this population remain consistent over time.Objectives: The study sought to investigate the pattern of ischemic risk over time and whether the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor were similar early and late after randomization.Methods: The PEGASUS-TIMI (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) 54 trial randomized patients with prior MI (median 1.7 years prior) to ticagrelor 90 mg, ticagrelor 60 mg, or placebo on a background of aspirin. The rates of cardiovascular (CV) death, MI, and stroke as well as TIMI major bleeding were analyzed at yearly landmarks (years 1, 2, and 3).Results: A total of 21,162 patients were randomized and followed for 33 months (median), with 28% of patients ≥5 years from MI at trial conclusion. The risk of CV death, MI, or stroke in the placebo arm remained roughly constant over the trial at an ∼3% annualized rate. The benefit of ticagrelor 60 mg was consistent at each subsequent landmark (year 1 hazard ratio [HR]: 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67 to 0.99; year 2 HR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.11; and year 3 HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.00). TIMI major bleeding was increased with ticagrelor 60 mg at each landmark, but with the greatest hazard in the first year (year 1 HR: 3.22; year 2 HR: 2.07; year 3 HR: 1.65).Conclusions: Patients with a history of MI remain at persistent high risk for CVD, MI, and stroke as late as 5 years after MI. The efficacy of low-dose ticagrelor is consistent over time with a trend toward less excess bleeding. (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin [PEGASUS]; NCT01225562). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 trial (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 54), ticagrelor reduced the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events when added to low-dose aspirin in stable patients with prior myocardial infarction, resulting in the approval of ticagrelor 60 mg twice daily for long-term secondary prevention. We investigated the incidence of stroke, outcomes after stroke, and the efficacy of ticagrelor focusing on the approved 60 mg twice daily dose for reducing stroke in this population.Methods: Patients were followed for a median of 33 months. Stroke events were adjudicated by a central committee. Data from similar trials were combined using meta-analysis.Results: Of 14 112 patients randomly assigned to placebo or ticagrelor 60 mg, 213 experienced a stroke; 85% of these strokes were ischemic. A total of 18% of strokes were fatal and another 15% led to either moderate or severe disability at 30 days. Ticagrelor significantly reduced the risk of stroke (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.98; P=0.034), driven by a reduction in ischemic stroke (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.02). Hemorrhagic stroke occurred in 9 patients on placebo and 8 patients on ticagrelor. A meta-analysis across 4 placebo-controlled trials of more intensive antiplatelet therapy in 44 816 patients with coronary disease confirmed a marked reduction in ischemic stroke (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.81; P=0.0001).Conclusions: High-risk patients with prior myocardial infarction are at risk for stroke, approximately one-third of which are fatal or lead to moderate-to-severe disability. The addition of ticagrelor 60 mg twice daily significantly reduced this risk without an excess of hemorrhagic stroke but with more major bleeding. In high-risk patients with coronary disease, more intensive antiplatelet therapy should be considered not only to reduce the risk of coronary events, but also of stroke.Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifier: NCT01225562. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is associated with heightened ischemic and bleeding risk in patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI).Objectives: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor on major cardiovascular (CV) events and major adverse limb events in patients with PAD and a prior MI.Methods: PEGASUS-TIMI 54 (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 54) randomized 21,162 patients with prior MI (1 to 3 years) to ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily, ticagrelor 60 mg twice daily, or placebo, all on a background of low-dose aspirin. History of PAD was obtained at baseline. Occurrences of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (defined as CV death, MI, or stroke) and major adverse limb events (MALE) (defined as acute limb ischemia or peripheral revascularization for ischemia) were recorded in follow-up.Results: A total of 1,143 patients (5%) had known PAD. In the placebo arm, those with PAD (n = 404) had higher rates of MACE at 3 years than those without (n = 6,663; 19.3% vs. 8.4%; p < 0.001), which persisted after adjusting for baseline differences (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.60; 95% confidence interval: 1.20 to 2.13; p = 0.0013), and higher rates of acute limb ischemia (1.0% vs. 0.1%) and peripheral revascularization procedures (9.15% vs. 0.46%). Whereas the relative risk reduction in MACE with ticagrelor was consistent, regardless of PAD, patients with PAD had a greater absolute risk reduction of 4.1% (number needed to treat: 25) due to their higher absolute risk. The absolute excess of TIMI major bleeding was 0.12% (number needed to harm: 834). The 60-mg dose had particularly favorable outcomes for CV and all-cause mortality. Ticagrelor (pooled doses) reduced the risk of MALE (hazard ratio: 0.65; 95% confidence interval: 0.44 to 0.95; p = 0.026).Conclusions: Among stable patients with prior MI, those with concomitant PAD have heightened ischemic risk. In these patients, ticagrelor reduced MACE, with a large absolute risk reduction, and MALE. (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin [PEGASUS-TIMI 54]; NCT01225562). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with diabetes appear to be at elevated risk of atherothrombotic events.Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor on recurrent ischemic events in patients with diabetes and prior myocardial infarction (MI).Methods: We examined the subgroups of patients with diabetes (n = 6,806) and without diabetes (n = 14,355) from PEGASUS-TIMI 54 (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 54), in which 21,162 patients with a history of MI 1 to 3 years prior and with additional risk factors were randomized to ticagrelor (90 or 60 mg twice daily) or placebo. Patients were followed for a median of 33 months. The primary efficacy endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (cardiovascular death, MI, stroke) and the primary safety endpoint was TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) major bleeding.Results: The relative risk reduction in MACE with ticagrelor was consistent for the pooled doses versus placebo in patients with diabetes (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72 to 0.99; p = 0.035) and without diabetes (HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.96; p = 0.013; p interaction = 0.99). As patients with diabetes were at higher risk of MACE, the absolute risk reduction tended to be greater in patients with versus without diabetes (1.5% vs. 1.1%, with corresponding 3-year number needed to treat of 67 vs. 91). In patients with diabetes requiring pharmacological therapy (n = 5,960), the absolute risk reduction was 1.9% with a 3-year number needed to treat of 53. Additionally, in patients with diabetes, ticagrelor reduced cardiovascular death by 22% and coronary heart disease death by 34%. Similar to patients without diabetes, there was increased TIMI major bleeding in patients with diabetes (HR: 2.56; 95% CI: 1.52 to 4.33; p = 0.0004).Conclusions: In patients with diabetes with prior MI, adding ticagrelor to aspirin significantly reduces the risk of recurrent ischemic events, including cardiovascular and coronary heart disease death. (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin [PEGASUS]; NCT01225562). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article investigates the effects of the P2Y receptor antagonist, ticagrelor, on patients who had myocardial infarction. Topics discussed include the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke as the primary efficacy end point used in the study, the efficacy of the drug in reducing the rate of primary efficacy end point and the results showing that ticagrelor reduces the risks of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and stroke among patients who took the drug.

Background: Genome-wide association studies have identified single-nucleotide polymorphisms that are associated with an increased risk of stroke. We sought to determine whether a genetic risk score (GRS) could identify subjects at higher risk for ischemic stroke after accounting for traditional clinical risk factors in 5 trials across the spectrum of cardiometabolic disease.Methods: Subjects who had consented for genetic testing and who were of European ancestry from the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 (Effective Anticoagulation with Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation), SOLID-TIMI 52 (Stabilization of Plaques Using Darapladib), SAVOR-TIMI 53 (Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus), PEGASUS-TIMI 54 (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin), and FOURIER (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research With PCSK9 Inhibition in Patients With Elevated Risk) trials were included in this analysis. A set of 32 single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with ischemic stroke was used to calculate a GRS in each patient and identify tertiles of genetic risk. A Cox model was used to calculate hazard ratios for ischemic stroke across genetic risk groups, adjusted for clinical risk factors.Results: In 51 288 subjects across the 5 trials, a total of 960 subjects had an ischemic stroke over a median follow-up period of 2.5 years. After adjusting for clinical risk factors, a higher GRS was strongly and independently associated with increased risk for ischemic stroke (P trend=0.009). In comparison with individuals in the lowest third of the GRS, individuals in the middle and top tertiles of the GRS had adjusted hazard ratios of 1.15 (95% CI, 0.98-1.36) and 1.24 (95% CI 1.05-1.45) for ischemic stroke, respectively. Stratification into subgroups revealed that the performance of the GRS appeared stronger in the primary prevention cohort with an adjusted hazard ratio for the top versus lowest tertile of 1.27 (95% CI, 1.04-1.53), in comparison with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.06 (95% CI, 0.81-1.41) in subjects with previous stroke. In an exploratory analysis of patients with atrial fibrillation and CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2, high genetic risk conferred a 4-fold higher risk of stroke and an absolute risk equivalent to those with CHA2DS2-VASc score of 3.Conclusions: Across a broad spectrum of subjects with cardiometabolic disease, a 32-single-nucleotide polymorphism GRS was a strong, independent predictor of ischemic stroke. In patients with atrial fibrillation but lower CHA2DS2-VASc scores, the GRS identified patients with risk comparable to those with higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]