Search

Preventing morbidity and mortality from diabetes mellitus is of paramount importance as the incidence of this disease is increasing across the world. While microvascular complications of diabetes such as nephropathy, retinopathy, and neuropathy are reduced with intensive glycemic control, treatment of hyperglycemia has not been consistently shown to have effects on the macrovascular complications of diabetes such as coronary artery, cerebrovascular, and peripheral vascular disease. Preventive efforts have accordingly shifted toward the modification of other cardiovascular risk factors in diabetic patients. Agonism of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) has long been an attractive target for antidiabetic therapy due to the role of PPARs in glycemic control and lipid metabolism. PPAR-γ agonists such as rosiglitazone and pioglitazone are used in clinical practice for the treatment of diabetes, and there is some evidence that pioglitazone may have positive effects on cardiovascular complications by virtue of its favorable effects on lipid profiles. However, they have not been shown to reduce macrovascular events. PPAR-γ agonism is the mechanism of action in the fibrate class of medications; these agents have been shown to increase high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels, reduce triglyceride levels, and improve cardiovascular outcomes. Given the prevalence of lipid abnormalities in patients with diabetes, dual PPAR-α/γ agonists (glitazars) could potentially benefit patients with diabetes. A phase II trial examining a novel dual PPAR agonist, aleglitazar, showed that therapy with this agent reduced hyperglycemia and favorably modified levels of HDL-C and triglycerides with an acceptable safety profile. Aleglitazar is currently being studied in large-scale clinical trials to assess whether it will reduce the risk of major cardiovascular endpoints (death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) among patients with diabetes and coronary artery disease. If ongoing studies confirm the theoretical benefit and safety of dual PPAR-α/γ agonism, aleglitazar may become the first therapy demonstrated to reduce macrovascular complications in patients with diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite previous reports of potential adverse cardiovascular effects of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR) agonists, the promise for PPAR agonists to positively affect risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes is of continued interest. The SYNCHRONY study aimed to establish the glucose-lowering and lipid-modifying effects, and safety profile, of the dual PPAR-alpha and PPAR-gamma agonist aleglitazar.Methods: In this double-blind study, patients with type 2 diabetes (either drug-naive or pre-treated with Findings: The efficacy analysis excluded six patients (n=0 in pioglitazone group; n=1 in each of placebo, 50 mug, 150 mug, and 600 mug aleglitazar groups; and n=2 in 300 mug aleglitazar group). Aleglitazar significantly reduced baseline HbA(1c) versus placebo in a dose-dependent manner, from -0.36% (95% CI 0.00 to -0.70, p=0.048) with 50 mug to -1.35% (-0.99 to -1.70, p<0.0001) with 600 mug. The trend of changes over time suggests that the maximum effect of aleglitazar on HbA(1c) concentration was not yet reached after 16 weeks of treatment. Oedema, haemodilution, and weight gain occurred in a dose-dependent manner. However, at aleglitazar doses less than 300 mug, no patients had congestive heart failure, frequency of oedema was similar to placebo (one case at 50 mug, two at 150 mug, and three with placebo) and less than with pioglitazone (four cases), and bodyweight gain was less than with pioglitazone (0.52 kg at 150 mug vs 1.06 kg).Interpretation: The favourable balance in the safety and efficacy profile of aleglitazar represents encouraging short-term clinical data for this agent and provides good evidence to enter phase III investigation.Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche AG (Switzerland). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: No antidiabetic regimen has demonstrated the ability to reduce progression of coronary atherosclerosis. Commonly used oral glucose-lowering agents include sulfonylureas, which are insulin secretagogues, and thiazolidinediones, which are insulin sensitizers.Objective: To compare the effects of an insulin sensitizer, pioglitazone, with an insulin secretagogue, glimepiride, on the progression of coronary atherosclerosis in patients with type 2 diabetes.Design, Setting, and Participants: Double-blind, randomized, multicenter trial at 97 academic and community hospitals in North and South America (enrollment August 2003-March 2006) in 543 patients with coronary disease and type 2 diabetes.Interventions: A total of 543 patients underwent coronary intravascular ultrasonography and were randomized to receive glimepiride, 1 to 4 mg, or pioglitazone, 15 to 45 mg, for 18 months with titration to maximum dosage, if tolerated. Atherosclerosis progression was measured by repeat intravascular ultrasonography examination in 360 patients at study completion.Main Outcome Measure: Change in percent atheroma volume (PAV) from baseline to study completion.Results: Least squares mean PAV increased 0.73% (95% CI, 0.33% to 1.12%) with glimepiride and decreased 0.16% (95% CI, -0.57% to 0.25%) with pioglitazone(P = .002). An alternative analysis imputing values for noncompleters based on baseline characteristics showed an increase in PAV of 0.64% (95% CI, 0.23% to 1.05%) for glimepiride and a decrease of 0.06% (-0.47% to 0.35%) for pioglitazone (between-group P = .02). Mean (SD) baseline HbA(1c) levels were 7.4% (1.0%) in both groups and declined during treatment an average 0.55% (95% CI, -0.68% to -0.42%) with pioglitazone and 0.36% (95% CI, -0.48% to -0.24%) with glimepiride (between-group P = .03). In the pioglitazone group, compared with glimepiride, high-density lipoprotein levels increased 5.7 mg/dL (95% CI, 4.4 to 7.0 mg/dL; 16.0%) vs 0.9 mg/dL (95% CI, -0.3 to 2.1 mg/dL; 4.1%), and median triglyceride levels decreased 16.3 mg/dL (95% CI, -27.7 to -11.0 mg/dL; 15.3%) vs an increase of 3.3 mg/dL (95% CI, -10.7 to 11.7 mg/dL; 0.6%) (P < .001 for both comparisons). Median fasting insulin levels decreased with pioglitazone and increased with glimepiride (P < .001). Hypoglycemia was more common in the glimepiride group and edema, fractures, and decreased hemoglobin levels occurred more frequently in the pioglitazone group.Conclusion: In patients with type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease, treatment with pioglitazone resulted in a significantly lower rate of progression of coronary atherosclerosis compared with glimepiride.Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00225277. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Abdominal obesity is associated with metabolic abnormalities and increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. However, no obesity management strategy has demonstrated the ability to slow progression of coronary disease.Objective: To determine whether weight loss and metabolic effects of the selective cannabinoid type 1 receptor antagonist rimonabant reduces progression of coronary disease in patients with abdominal obesity and the metabolic syndrome.Design, Setting, and Patients: Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, 2-group, parallel-group trial (enrollment December 2004-December 2005) comparing rimonabant with placebo in 839 patients at 112 centers in North America, Europe, and Australia.Interventions: Patients received dietary counseling, were randomized to receive rimonabant (20 mg daily) or matching placebo, and underwent coronary intravascular ultrasonography at baseline (n = 839) and study completion (n = 676).Main Outcome Measures: The primary efficacy parameter was change in percent atheroma volume (PAV); the secondary efficacy parameter was change in normalized total atheroma volume (TAV).Results: In the rimonabant vs placebo groups, PAV (95% confidence interval [CI]) increased 0.25% (-0.04% to 0.54%) vs 0.51% (0.22% to 0.80%) (P = .22), respectively, and TAV decreased 2.2 mm3 (-4.09 to -0.24) vs an increase of 0.88 mm3 (-1.03 to 2.79) (P = .03). In the rimonabant vs placebo groups, imputing results based on baseline characteristics for patients not completing the trial, PAV increased 0.25% (-0.04% to 0.55%) vs 0.57% (0.29% to 0.84%) (P = .13), and TAV decreased 1.95 mm3 (-3.8 to -0.10) vs an increase of 1.19 mm3 (-0.73 to 3.12) (P = .02). Rimonabant-treated patients had a larger reduction in body weight (4.3 kg [-5.1 to -3.5] vs 0.5 kg [-1.3 to 0.3]) and greater decrease in waist circumference (4.5 cm [-5.4 to -3.7] vs 1.0 cm [-1.9 to -0.2]) (P < .001 for both comparisons). In the rimonabant vs placebo groups, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels increased 5.8 mg/dL (4.9 to 6.8) (22.4%) vs 1.8 mg/dL (0.9 to 2.7) (6.9%) (P < .001), and median triglyceride levels decreased 24.8 mg/dL (-35.4 to -17.3) (20.5%) vs 8.9 mg/dL (-14.2 to -1.8) (6.2%) (P < .001). Rimonabant-treated patients had greater decreases in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (1.3 mg/dL [-1.7 to -1.2] [50.3%] vs 0.9 mg/dL [-1.4 to -0.5] [30.9%]) and less increase in glycated hemoglobin levels (0.11% [0.02% to 0.20%] vs 0.40% [0.31% to 0.49%]) (P < .001 for both comparisons). Psychiatric adverse effects were more common in the rimonabant group (43.4% vs 28.4%, P < .001).Conclusions: After 18 months of treatment, the study failed to show an effect for rimonabant on disease progression for the primary end point (PAV) but showed a favorable effect on the secondary end point (TAV). Determining whether rimonabant is useful in management of coronary disease will require additional imaging and outcomes trials, which are currently under way.Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00124332. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: At 30-day follow-up, patients with moderate- and high-risk acute coronary syndromes (ACS) undergoing early invasive treatment in the ACUITY trial with bivalirudin monotherapy vs heparin plus glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitors had noninferior rates of adverse ischemic events with reduced rates of major bleeding. Deferred upstream use of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors for selective administration to patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) resulted in a significant reduction in major bleeding, although a small increase in composite ischemia could not be excluded.Objective: To determine 1-year ischemic outcomes for patients in the ACUITY trial.Design, Setting, and Patients: A prospective, randomized, open-label trial with 1-year clinical follow-up at 450 academic and community-based institutions in 17 countries. A total of 13,819 patients with moderate- and high-risk ACS undergoing invasive treatment were enrolled between August 23, 2003, and December 5, 2005.Interventions: Patients were assigned to heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors (n = 4603), bivalirudin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors (n = 4604), or bivalirudin monotherapy (n = 4612). Of these patients, 4605 were assigned to routine upstream GP IIb/IIIa administration and 4602 were deferred to selective GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor administration.Main Outcome Measure: Composite ischemia (death, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization for ischemia) at 1 year.Results: Composite ischemia at 1 year occurred in 15.4% of patients assigned to heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors and 16.0% assigned to bivalirudin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors (compared with heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors, HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.95-1.16; P = .35), and 16.2% assigned to bivalirudin monotherapy (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.95-1.17; P = .29). Mortality at 1 year occurred in an estimated 3.9% of patients assigned to heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors, 3.9% assigned to bivalirudin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.80-1.22; P = .92), and 3.8% assigned to bivalirudin monotherapy (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.77-1.18; P = .67). Composite ischemia occurred in 16.3% of patients assigned to deferred use compared with 15.2% of patients assigned to upstream administration (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.97-1.20; P = .15).Conclusions: At 1 year, no statistically significant difference in rates of composite ischemia or mortality among patients with moderate- and high-risk ACS undergoing invasive treatment with the 3 therapies was found. There was no statistically significant difference in the rates of composite ischemia between patients receiving routine upstream administration of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors vs deferring their use for patients undergoing PCI.Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00093158. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Pioglitazone is widely used for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, but evidence is mixed regarding the influence of medications of this class on cardiovascular outcomes.Objective: To systematically evaluate the effect of pioglitazone on ischemic cardiovascular events.Data Sources and Study Selection: A database containing individual patient-level time-to-event data collected during pioglitazone clinical trials was transferred from the drug's manufacturer for independent analysis. Trials were included if they were randomized, double-blinded, and controlled with placebo or active comparator.Data Extraction: The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Secondary outcome measures included the incidence of serious heart failure. A fixed-effects approach was used to combine the estimates across the duration strata and statistical heterogeneity across all the trials was tested with the I2 statistic.Data Synthesis: A total of 19 trials enrolling 16 390 patients were analyzed. Study drug treatment duration ranged from 4 months to 3.5 years. Death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 375 of 8554 patients (4.4%) receiving pioglitazone and 450 of 7836 patients (5.7%) receiving control therapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-0.94; P = .005). Progressive separation of time-to-event curves became apparent after approximately 1 year of therapy. Individual components of the primary end point were all reduced by a similar magnitude with pioglitazone treatment, with HRs ranging from 0.80 to 0.92. Serious heart failure was reported in 200 (2.3%) of the pioglitazone-treated patients and 139 (1.8%) of the control patients (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.14-1.76; P = .002). The magnitude and direction of the favorable effect of pioglitazone on ischemic events and unfavorable effect on heart failure was homogeneous across trials of different durations, for different comparators, and for patients with or without established vascular disease. There was no evidence of heterogeneity across the trials for either end point (I2 = 0%; P = .87 for the composite end point and I2 = 0%; P = .97 for heart failure).Conclusions: Pioglitazone is associated with a significantly lower risk of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke among a diverse population of patients with diabetes. Serious heart failure is increased by pioglitazone, although without an associated increase in mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: In patients with moderate- and high-risk acute coronary syndromes (ACS) who undergo an early, invasive treatment strategy, current guidelines recommend administration of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa (Gp IIb/IIIa) inhibitors, either upstream to all patients prior to angiography or deferred for selective use in the catheterization laboratory just prior to angioplasty. The preferred approach is undetermined.Objective: To determine the optimal strategy for the use of Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients with moderate- and high-risk ACS undergoing an early, invasive treatment strategy.Design: Prospective, randomized, open-label trial with 30-day clinical follow-up.Setting: Four hundred fifty academic and community-based institutions in 17 countries.Patients: A total of 9207 patients with moderate- and high-risk ACS undergoing an invasive treatment strategy.Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either routine upstream (n=4605) or deferred selective (n=4602) Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitor administration, respectively.Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was assessment of noninferiority of deferred Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitor use compared with upstream administration for the prevention of composite ischemic events (death, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization for ischemia) at 30 days, using a 1-sided alpha level of .025. Major secondary end points included noninferiority or superiority of major bleeding and net clinical outcomes (composite ischemia or major bleeding).Results: Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors were used more frequently (98.3% vs 55.7%, respectively) and for a significantly longer duration (median, 18.3 vs 13.1 hours; P<.001) in patients in the upstream group compared with the deferred group. Composite ischemia at 30 days occurred in 7.9% of patients assigned to deferred use compared with 7.1% of patients assigned to upstream administration (relative risk, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.97-1.29; P = .044 for noninferiority; P = .13 for superiority); as such, the criterion for noninferiority was not met. Deferred use compared with upstream use resulted in reduced 30-day rates of major bleeding (4.9% vs 6.1%, respectively; P<.001 for noninferiority; P = .009 for superiority) and similar rates of net clinical outcomes (11.7% vs 11.7%; P<.001 for noninferiority; P = .93 for superiority).Conclusions: Among patients with moderate- and high-risk ACS undergoing an invasive treatment strategy, deferring the routine upstream use of Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitors for selective administration in the cardiac catheterization laboratory only to patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention resulted in a numerical increase in composite ischemia that, while not statistically significant, did not meet the criterion for noninferiority. This finding was offset by a significant reduction in major bleeding.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00093158. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess if clopidogrel pretreatment affects the relative efficacy of bivalirudin versus heparin with glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa blockade for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI).Background: Although thienopyridine pretreatment may improve clinical outcomes with PCI, it is unknown if bivalirudin's efficacy compared with heparin is dependent upon such pretreatment.Methods: The Randomized Evaluation in Percutaneous coronary intervention Linking Angiomax to reduced Clinical Events (REPLACE-2) trial was a double-blind, triple-dummy, randomized-controlled trial comparing heparin plus routine GP IIb/IIIa blockade (heparin group) with bivalirudin plus provisional GP IIb/IIIa blockade (bivalirudin group) during PCI. The primary end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), urgent revascularization at 30 days, and major in-hospital bleeding. The secondary end point was a 30-day composite of death, MI, and urgent revascularization. Clopidogrel pretreatment was encouraged (300 mg loading, 75 mg/day).Results: Of 6,010 patients enrolled, 5,893 received clopidogrel, with 85.8% in the bivalirudin and 84.6% in the heparin group receiving clopidogrel pretreatment. Bivalirudin (provisional GP IIb/IIIa blockade 7.2%) was noninferior to the heparin group for both primary and secondary end points. Clopidogrel pretreatment did not affect the relative efficacy of bivalirudin versus heparin with GP IIb/IIIa blockade, irrespective of pretreatment duration. Pretreatment was associated with significantly lower primary end point with bivalirudin (8.7% pretreatment vs. 12.9% no pretreatment, p = 0.007), and nonsignificantly with heparin (9.7% vs. 11.7%, respectively, p = 0.20). Multivariable models showed a trend toward lower primary and secondary end points with clopidogrel pretreatment.Conclusions: Clopidogrel pretreatment at the doses and time administered in this trial did not influence the relative efficacy of bivalirudin versus heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa blockade for PCI. However, pretreatment was associated with a trend towards lower clinical events after PCI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: In acute myocardial infarction, the presence and severity of heart failure at the time of initial presentation have been formally categorized by the Killip classification. Although well studied in ST-elevation myocardial infarction, the prognostic importance of Killip classification in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes is not well established.Objectives: To determine the prognostic importance of physical examination for heart failure analyzed according to Killip classification in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes and to understand its predictive value relative to other variables.Design, Setting, and Patients: From April 2001 to September 2003, We analyzed information from 26 090 patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes enrolled in the GUSTO IIb, PURSUIT, PARAGON A, and PARAGON B trials. Demographic information was categorized by Killip class. Killip classes III and IV were combined into 1 category. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were developed to determine the prognostic importance of Killip classification in comparison with other variables.Main Outcome Measure: Association between Killip classification and all-cause mortality at 30 days and 6 months.Results: Patients in Killip class II (n = 2513) and III/IV (n = 390) were older than those in Killip class I (n = 23 187), with higher rates of diabetes, prior myocardial infarction, ST depression, and elevated cardiac enzymes (all P<.001). Higher Killip class was associated with higher mortality at 30 days (2.8% in Killip class I vs 8.8% in class II vs 14.4% in class III/IV; P<.001) and 6 months (5.0% vs 14.7% vs 23.0%, respectively; P<.001). Patients with Killip class II, III, or IV constituted 11% of the overall population but accounted for approximately 30% of the deaths at both time points. In multivariate analysis, Killip class III/IV was the most powerful predictor of mortality at 30 days (hazard ratio [HR], 2.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.69-3.26; P<.001) and 6 months (HR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.63-2.75; P<.001). Killip class II was predictive of mortality at 30 days (HR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.44-2.09; P<.001) and 6 months (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.31-1.76; P<.001). Five factors-age, Killip classification, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and ST depression-provided more than 70% of the prognostic information for 30-day and 6-month mortality.Conclusions: Killip classification is a powerful independent predictor of all-cause mortality in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes. Age, Killip classification, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and ST depression should receive particular attention in the initial assessment of these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The effects of beta blocker therapy in the settings of heart failure and coronary artery disease have been well described, although little data exist in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The current study will attempt to evaluate the efficacy of beta blocker therapy in this setting. Pooled data from five randomized, controlled trials of abciximab during coronary intervention were used to analyze the clinical efficacy of beta blocker therapy. The pooled analysis evaluated the end points of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and the combined endpoint of death and myocardial infarction in 2,894 patients. At 30 days, death occurred in 12 of 1,939 (0.6%) patients receiving beta blocker therapy and in 19 of 955 (2.0%) patients not receiving beta blocker therapy, (P < 0.001). At 6 months, death occurred in 33 of 1,939 (1.7%) patients receiving beta blocker therapy and 35 of 955 (3.7%) not receiving beta blocker therapy, (P < 0.001). After creating a propensity model and adjusting for variables predictive of mortality in the multivariable analysis, beta blocker therapy continued to be associated with a significant reduction in mortality. The findings were similar to those shown for the effects of beta blocker therapy in separate subgroups of patients with unstable angina and acute myocardial infarction. This analysis demonstrates a lower short-term mortality in patients receiving beta blocker therapy who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention for unstable angina or acute myocardial infarction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]