| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Bangalore, Sripal, et al.
(författare)
-
Management of Coronary Disease in Patients with Advanced Kidney Disease.
- 2020
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 382:17, s. 1608-1618
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Clinical trials that have assessed the effect of revascularization in patients with stable coronary disease have routinely excluded those with advanced chronic kidney disease.METHODS: We randomly assigned 777 patients with advanced kidney disease and moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing to be treated with an initial invasive strategy consisting of coronary angiography and revascularization (if appropriate) added to medical therapy or an initial conservative strategy consisting of medical therapy alone and angiography reserved for those in whom medical therapy had failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. A key secondary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest.RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 2.2 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 123 patients in the invasive-strategy group and in 129 patients in the conservative-strategy group (estimated 3-year event rate, 36.4% vs. 36.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.29; P = 0.95). Results for the key secondary outcome were similar (38.5% vs. 39.7%; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.29). The invasive strategy was associated with a higher incidence of stroke than the conservative strategy (hazard ratio, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.52 to 9.32; P = 0.004) and with a higher incidence of death or initiation of dialysis (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.11; P = 0.03).CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable coronary disease, advanced chronic kidney disease, and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA-CKD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01985360.).
|
|
| 4. |
- Maron, David J., et al.
(författare)
-
Initial Invasive or Conservative Strategy for Stable Coronary Disease
- 2020
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 382:15, s. 1395-1407
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain.Methods: We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction.Results: Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, -1.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32).Conclusions: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, .) Patients with stable coronary disease were randomly assigned to an initial invasive strategy with angiography and revascularization if appropriate or to medical therapy alone. At 3.2 years, there was no significant difference between the groups with respect to the estimated rate of ischemic events. The findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction.
|
|
| 5. |
- Reynolds, Harmony R., et al.
(författare)
-
Association of Sex With Severity of Coronary Artery Disease, Ischemia, and Symptom Burden in Patients With Moderate or Severe Ischemia Secondary Analysis of the ISCHEMIA Randomized Clinical Trial
- 2020
-
Ingår i: JAMA cardiology. - : American Medical Association (AMA). - 2380-6583 .- 2380-6591. ; 5:7, s. 773-786
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Key PointsQuestion When considering patients who have obstructive coronary artery disease and ischemia on stress testing, are there sex differences in severity of coronary artery disease, ischemia, and/or symptoms?Findings In this secondary analysis of the ISCHEMIA randomized clinical trial of 5179 patients, women had more frequent angina, less extensive coronary artery disease, and less severe ischemia than men. On multivariate analysis, female sex was independently associated with greater angina frequency.Meaning There may be inherent sex differences in the complex relationships between angina, ischemia, and atherosclerosis that may have implications for testing and treatment of patients with suspected coronary artery disease.AbstractImportance While many features of stable ischemic heart disease vary by sex, differences in ischemia, coronary anatomy, and symptoms by sex have not been investigated among patients with moderate or severe ischemia. The enrolled ISCHEMIA trial cohort that underwent coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) was required to have obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) for randomization.Objective To describe sex differences in stress testing, CCTA findings, and symptoms in ISCHEMIA trial participants.Design, Setting, and Participants This secondary analysis of the multicenter ISCHEMIA randomized clinical trial analyzed baseline characteristics of patients with stable ischemic heart disease. Individuals were enrolled from July 2012 to January 2018 based on local reading of moderate or severe ischemia on a stress test, after which blinded CCTA was performed in most. Core laboratories reviewed stress tests and CCTAs. Participants with no obstructive CAD or with left main CAD of 50% or greater were excluded. Those who met eligibility criteria including CCTA (if performed) were randomized to a routine invasive or a conservative management strategy (N = 5179). Angina was assessed using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire. Analysis began October 1, 2018.Interventions CCTA and angina assessment.Main Outcomes and Measures Sex differences in stress test, CCTA findings, and symptom severity.Results Of 8518 patients enrolled, 6256 (77%) were men. Women were more likely to have no obstructive CAD (<50% stenosis in all vessels on CCTA) (353 of 1022 [34.4%] vs 378 of 3353 [11.3%]). Of individuals who were randomized, women had more angina at baseline than men (median [interquartile range] Seattle Angina Questionnaire Angina Frequency score: 80 [70-100] vs 90 [70-100]). Women had less severe ischemia on stress imaging (383 of 919 [41.7%] vs 1361 of 2972 [45.9%] with severe ischemia; 386 of 919 [42.0%] vs 1215 of 2972 [40.9%] with moderate ischemia; and 150 of 919 [16.4%] vs 394 of 2972 [13.3%] with mild or no ischemia). Ischemia was similar by sex on exercise tolerance testing. Women had less extensive CAD on CCTA (205 of 568 women [36%] vs 1142 of 2418 men [47%] with 3-vessel disease; 184 of 568 women [32%] vs 754 of 2418 men [31%] with 2-vessel disease; and 178 of 568 women [31%] vs 519 of 2418 men [22%] with 1-vessel disease). Female sex was independently associated with greater angina frequency (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.13-1.76).Conclusions and Relevance Women in the ISCHEMIA trial had more frequent angina, independent of less extensive CAD, and less severe ischemia than men. These findings reflect inherent sex differences in the complex relationships between angina, atherosclerosis, and ischemia that may have implications for testing and treatment of patients with suspected stable ischemic heart disease.
|
|
| 6. |
- Reynolds, Harmony R., et al.
(författare)
-
Outcomes in the ISCHEMIA Trial Based on Coronary Artery Disease and Ischemia Severity
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Circulation. - : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. - 0009-7322 .- 1524-4539. ; 144:13, s. 1024-1038
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) postulated that patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and moderate or severe ischemia would benefit from revascularization. We investigated the relationship between severity of CAD and ischemia and trial outcomes, overall and by management strategy.METHODS: In total, 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia were randomized to an initial invasive or conservative management strategy. Blinded, core laboratory-interpreted coronary computed tomographic angiography was used to assess anatomic eligibility for randomization. Extent and severity of CAD were classified with the modified Duke Prognostic Index (n=2475, 48%). Ischemia severity was interpreted by independent core laboratories (nuclear, echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging, exercise tolerance testing, n=5105, 99%). We compared 4-year event rates across subgroups defined by severity of ischemia and CAD. The primary end point for this analysis was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points were myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular death or MI, and the trial primary end point (cardiovascular death, MI, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest).RESULTS: Relative to mild/no ischemia, neither moderate ischemia nor severe ischemia was associated with increased mortality (moderate ischemia hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.61-1.30]; severe ischemia HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.57-1.21]; P=0.33). Nonfatal MI rates increased with worsening ischemia severity (HR for moderate ischemia, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.86-1.69] versus mild/no ischemia; HR for severe ischemia, 1.37 [95% CI, 0.98-1.91]; P=0.04 for trend, P=NS after adjustment for CAD). Increasing CAD severity was associated with death (HR, 2.72 [95% CI, 1.06-6.98]) and MI (HR, 3.78 [95% CI, 1.63-8.78]) for the most versus least severe CAD subgroup. Ischemia severity did not identify a subgroup with treatment benefit on mortality, MI, the trial primary end point, or cardiovascular death or MI. In the most severe CAD subgroup (n=659), the 4-year rate of cardiovascular death or MI was lower in the invasive strategy group (difference, 6.3% [95% CI, 0.2%-12.4%]), but 4-year all-cause mortality was similar.CONCLUSIONS: Ischemia severity was not associated with increased risk after adjustment for CAD severity. More severe CAD was associated with increased risk. Invasive management did not lower all-cause mortality at 4 years in any ischemia or CAD subgroup.
|
|
| 7. |
- Schwartz, Gregory G, et al.
(författare)
-
Effects of Dalcetrapib in Patients with a Recent Acute Coronary Syndrome
- 2012
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - : Massachusetts Medical Society. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 367:22, s. 2089-2099
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND less thanbrgreater than less thanbrgreater thanIn observational analyses, higher levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol have been associated with a lower risk of coronary heart disease events. However, whether raising HDL cholesterol levels therapeutically reduces cardiovascular risk remains uncertain. Inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) raises HDL cholesterol levels and might therefore improve cardiovascular outcomes. less thanbrgreater than less thanbrgreater thanMETHODS less thanbrgreater than less thanbrgreater thanWe randomly assigned 15,871 patients who had had a recent acute coronary syndrome to receive the CETP inhibitor dalcetrapib, at a dose of 600 mg daily, or placebo, in addition to the best available evidence-based care. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of death from coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, unstable angina, or cardiac arrest with resuscitation. less thanbrgreater than less thanbrgreater thanRESULTS less thanbrgreater than less thanbrgreater thanAt the time of randomization, the mean HDL cholesterol level was 42 mg per deciliter (1.1 mmol per liter), and the mean low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level was 76 mg per deciliter (2.0 mmol per liter). Over the course of the trial, HDL cholesterol levels increased from baseline by 4 to 11% in the placebo group and by 31 to 40% in the dalcetrapib group. Dalcetrapib had a minimal effect on LDL cholesterol levels. Patients were followed for a median of 31 months. At a prespecified interim analysis that included 1135 primary end-point events (71% of the projected total number), the independent data and safety monitoring board recommended termination of the trial for futility. As compared with placebo, dalcetrapib did not alter the risk of the primary end point (cumulative event rate, 8.0% and 8.3%, respectively; hazard ratio with dalcetrapib, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.93 to 1.16; P = 0.52) and did not have a significant effect on any component of the primary end point or total mortality. The median C-reactive protein level was 0.2 mg per liter higher and the mean systolic blood pressure was 0.6 mm Hg higher with dalcetrapib as compared with placebo (Pandlt;0.001 for both comparisons). less thanbrgreater than less thanbrgreater thanCONCLUSIONS less thanbrgreater than less thanbrgreater thanIn patients who had had a recent acute coronary syndrome, dalcetrapib increased HDL cholesterol levels but did not reduce the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche; dal-OUTCOMES ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00658515.)
|
|
| 8. |
- Spertus, John A, et al.
(författare)
-
Health Status after Invasive or Conservative Care in Coronary and Advanced Kidney Disease.
- 2020
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 382:17, s. 1619-1628
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: In the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, the primary analysis showed no significant difference in the risk of death or myocardial infarction with initial angiography and revascularization plus guideline-based medical therapy (invasive strategy) as compared with guideline-based medical therapy alone (conservative strategy) in participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease (an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 or receipt of dialysis). A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status.METHODS: We assessed health status with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) before randomization and at 1.5, 3, and 6 months and every 6 months thereafter. The primary outcome of this analysis was the SAQ Summary score (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating less frequent angina and better function and quality of life). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate the treatment effect with the invasive strategy.RESULTS: Health status was assessed in 705 of 777 participants. Nearly half the participants (49%) had had no angina during the month before randomization. At 3 months, the estimated mean difference between the invasive-strategy group and the conservative-strategy group in the SAQ Summary score was 2.1 points (95% credible interval, -0.4 to 4.6), a result that favored the invasive strategy. The mean difference in score at 3 months was largest among participants with daily or weekly angina at baseline (10.1 points; 95% credible interval, 0.0 to 19.9), smaller among those with monthly angina at baseline (2.2 points; 95% credible interval, -2.0 to 6.2), and nearly absent among those without angina at baseline (0.6 points; 95% credible interval, -1.9 to 3.3). By 6 months, the between-group difference in the overall trial population was attenuated (0.5 points; 95% credible interval, -2.2 to 3.4).CONCLUSIONS: Participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease did not have substantial or sustained benefits with regard to angina-related health status with an initially invasive strategy as compared with a conservative strategy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ISCHEMIA-CKD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01985360.).
|
|
| 9. |
- Schwartz, Gregory G, et al.
(författare)
-
Rationale and design of the dal-OUTCOMES trial: Efficacy and safety of dalcetrapib in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome
- 2009
-
Ingår i: American Heart Journal. - : Elsevier BV. - 0002-8703 .- 1097-6744. ; 158:6, s. 896-U34
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Despite contemporary therapies for acute coronary syndrome (ACS), morbidity and mortality remain high. Low levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol are common among patients with ACS and may contribute to ongoing risk. Strategies that raise levels of HDL cholesterol, such as inhibition of cholesterol ester transfer protein (CETP), might reduce risk after ACS. Dal-OUTCOMES is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial designed to test the hypothesis that CETP inhibition with dalcetrapib reduces cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with recent ACS. Design The study will randomize approximately 15,600 patients to receive daily doses of dalcetrapib 600 mg or matching placebo, beginning 4 to 12 weeks after an index ACS event. There are no prespecified boundaries for HDL cholesterol levels at entry. Other elements of care, including management of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, are to follow best evidence-based practice. The primary efficacy measure is time to first occurrence of coronary heart disease death, nonfatal acute myocardial infarction, unstable angina requiring hospital admission, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or atherothrombotic stroke. The trial will continue until 1,600 primary end point events have occurred, all evaluable subjects have been followed for at least 2 years, and 80% of evaluable subjects have been followed for at least 2.5 years. Summary Dal-OUTCOMES will determine whether CETP inhibition with dalcetrapib, added to current evidence-based care, reduces cardiovascular morbidity and mortality after ACS.
|
|
| 10. |
- Sharma, Abhinav, et al.
(författare)
-
Clinical Events Classification (CEC) in Clinical Trials : Report on the Current Landscape and Future Directions - Proceedings from the CEC Summit 2018
- 2022
-
Ingår i: American Heart Journal. - : Elsevier. - 0002-8703 .- 1097-6744. ; 246, s. 93-104
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Importance: Clinical events adjudication is pivotal for generating consistent and comparable evidence in clinical trials. The methodology of event adjudication is evolving, but research is needed to develop best practices and spur innovation.Observations: A meeting of stakeholders from regulatory agencies, academic and contract research organizations, pharmaceutical and device companies, and clinical trialists convened in Chicago, IL, for Clinical Events Classification (CEC) Summit 2018 to discuss key topics and future directions. Formal studies are lacking on strategies to optimize CEC conduct, improve efficiency, minimize cost, and generally increase the speed and accuracy of the event adjudication process. Major challenges to CEC discussed included ensuring rigorous quality of the process, identifying safety events, standardizing event definitions, using uniform strategies for missing information, facilitating interactions between CEC members and other trial leadership, and determining the CEC's role in pragmatic trials or trials using real-world data. Consensus recommendations from the meeting include the following: 1) ensure an adequate adjudication infrastructure; 2) use negatively adjudicated events to identify important safety events reported only outside the scope of the primary endpoint; 3) conduct further research in the use of artificial intelligence and digital/mobile technologies to streamline adjudication processes; and 4) emphasize the importance of standardizing event definitions and quality metrics of CEC programs.Conclusions and Relevance: As novel strategies for clinical trials emerge to generate evidence for regulatory approval and to guide clinical practice, a greater understanding of the role of the CEC process will be critical to optimize trial conduct and increase confidence in the data generated.
|
|
