| 1. |
- Bhatt, Deepak L., et al.
(author)
-
Rationale, design and baseline characteristics of the effect of ticagrelor on health outcomes in diabetes mellitus patients Intervention study
- 2019
-
In: Clinical Cardiology. - : Wiley. - 0160-9289 .- 1932-8737. ; 42:5, s. 498-505
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In the setting of prior myocardial infarction, the oral antiplatelet ticagrelor added to aspirin reduced the risk of recurrent ischemic events, especially, in those with diabetes mellitus. Patients with stable coronary disease and diabetes are also at elevated risk and might benefit from dual antiplatelet therapy. The Effect of Ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in diabEtes Mellitus patients Intervention Study (THEMIS, NCT01991795) is a Phase 3b randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of ticagrelor vs placebo, on top of low dose aspirin. Patients >= 50 years with type 2 diabetes receiving anti-diabetic medications for at least 6 months with stable coronary artery disease as determined by a history of previous percutaneous coronary intervention, bypass grafting, or angiographic stenosis of >= 50% of at least one coronary artery were enrolled. Patients with known prior myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke were excluded. The primary efficacy endpoint is a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The primary safety endpoint is Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction major bleeding. A total of 19 220 patients worldwide have been randomized and at least 1385 adjudicated primary efficacy endpoint events are expected to be available for analysis, with an expected average follow-up of 40 months (maximum 58 months). Most of the exposure is on a 60 mg twice daily dose, as the dose was lowered from 90 mg twice daily partway into the study. The results may revise the boundaries of efficacy for dual antiplatelet therapy and whether it has a role outside acute coronary syndromes, prior myocardial infarction, or percutaneous coronary intervention.
|
|
| 2. |
- Dellborg, Mikael, 1954, et al.
(author)
-
Efficacy and safety with ticagrelor in patients with prior myocardial infarction in the approved European label: insights from PEGASUS-TIMI 54.
- 2019
-
In: European heart journal. Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 2055-6845 .- 2055-6837. ; 5:4, s. 200-206
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In PEGASUS-TIMI 54, ticagrelor significantly reduced the risk of the composite of major adverse cardiovascular (CV) events by 15-16% in stable patients with a prior myocardial infarction (MI) 1-3years earlier. We report the efficacy and safety in the subpopulation recommended for treatment in the European (EU) label, i.e. treatment with 60mg b.i.d. initiated up to 2years from the MI, or within 1 year after stopping previous adenosine diphosphate receptor inhibitor treatment.Of the 21162 patients enrolled in PEGASUS-TIMI 54, 10779 patients were included in the primary analysis for this study, randomized to ticagrelor 60mg (n=5388) or matching placebo (n=5391). The cumulative proportions of patients with events at 36months were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier (KM) method. The composite of CV death, MI, or stroke occurred less frequently in the ticagrelor group (7.9% KM rate vs. 9.6%), hazard ratio (HR) 0.80 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.91; P=0.001]. Ticagrelor also reduced the risk of all-cause mortality, HR 0.80 (0.67-0.96; P=0.018). Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction major bleeding was more frequent in the ticagrelor group 2.5% vs. 1.1%; HR 2.36 (1.65-3.39; P<0.001). The corresponding HR for fatal or intracranial bleeding was 1.17 (0.68-2.01; P=0.58).In PEGASUS-TIMI 54, treatment with ticagrelor 60mg as recommended in the EU label, was associated with a relative risk reduction of 20% in CV death, MI, or stroke. Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction major bleeding was increased, but fatal or intracranial bleeding was similar to placebo. There appears to be a favourable benefit-risk ratio for long-term ticagrelor 60mg in this population.http://www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01225562.
|
|
| 3. |
- Maron, David J., et al.
(author)
-
Initial Invasive or Conservative Strategy for Stable Coronary Disease
- 2020
-
In: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 382:15, s. 1395-1407
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- White, Harvey D, et al.
(author)
-
Darapladib for preventing ischemic events in stable coronary heart disease
- 2014
-
In: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 370:18, s. 1702-1711
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND:Elevated lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 activity promotes the development of vulnerable atherosclerotic plaques, and elevated plasma levels of this enzyme are associated with an increased risk of coronary events. Darapladib is a selective oral inhibitor of lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2.METHODS:In a double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 15,828 patients with stable coronary heart disease to receive either once-daily darapladib (at a dose of 160 mg) or placebo. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Secondary end points included the components of the primary end point as well as major coronary events (death from coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, or urgent coronary revascularization for myocardial ischemia) and total coronary events (death from coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, hospitalization for unstable angina, or any coronary revascularization).RESULTS:During a median follow-up period of 3.7 years, the primary end point occurred in 769 of 7924 patients (9.7%) in the darapladib group and 819 of 7904 patients (10.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the darapladib group, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.03; P=0.20). There were also no significant between-group differences in the rates of the individual components of the primary end point or in all-cause mortality. Darapladib, as compared with placebo, reduced the rate of major coronary events (9.3% vs. 10.3%; hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.00; P=0.045) and total coronary events (14.6% vs. 16.1%; hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84 to 0.98; P=0.02).CONCLUSIONS:In patients with stable coronary heart disease, darapladib did not significantly reduce the risk of the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; STABILITY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00799903.).
|
|
| 6. |
- White, Harvey D., et al.
(author)
-
Survival with Cardiac-Resynchronization Therapy in Mild Heart Failure
- 2014
-
In: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 370:18, s. 1702-1711
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Elevated lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A(2) activity promotes the development of vulnerable atherosclerotic plaques, and elevated plasma levels of this enzyme are associated with an increased risk of coronary events. Darapladib is a selective oral inhibitor of lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A(2). Methods: In a double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 15,828 patients with stable coronary heart disease to receive either once-daily darapladib (at a dose of 160 mg) or placebo. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Secondary end points included the components of the primary end point as well as major coronary events (death from coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, or urgent coronary revascularization for myocardial ischemia) and total coronary events (death from coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, hospitalization for unstable angina, or any coronary revascularization). Results: During a median follow-up period of 3.7 years, the primary end point occurred in 769 of 7924 patients (9.7%) in the darapladib group and 819 of 7904 patients (10.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the darapladib group, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.03; P=0.20). There were also no significant between-group differences in the rates of the individual components of the primary end point or in all-cause mortality. Darapladib, as compared with placebo, reduced the rate of major coronary events (9.3% vs. 10.3%; hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.00; P=0.045) and total coronary events (14.6% vs. 16.1%; hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84 to 0.98; P=0.02). ConclusionsIn patients with stable coronary heart disease, darapladib did not significantly reduce the risk of the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; STABILITY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00799903.)
|
|
| 7. |
- Bonaca, Marc P, et al.
(author)
-
Antithrombotics in acute coronary syndromes
- 2009
-
In: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0735-1097 .- 1558-3597. ; 54:11, s. 969-984
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Antithrombotic agents are an integral component of the medical regimens and interventional strategies currently recommended to reduce thrombotic complications in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Despite great advances with these therapies, associated high risks for thrombosis and hemorrhage remain as the result of complex interactions involving patient comorbidities, drug combinations, multifaceted dosing adjustments, and the intricacies of the care environment. As such, the optimal combinations of antithrombotic therapies, their timing, and appropriate targeted subgroups remain the focus of intense research. During the last several years a number of new antithrombotic treatments have been introduced, and new data regarding established therapies have come to light. Although treatment guidelines include the most current available data, subsequent findings can be challenging to integrate. This challenge is compounded by the complexity associated with different efficacy and safety measures and the variability in study populations, presenting syndromes, physician, and patient preferences. In this work we review recent data regarding clinically available antiplatelet and anticoagulation agents used in the treatment of patients with ACS. We address issues including relative efficacy, safety, and timing of therapies with respect to conservative and invasive treatment strategies. In specific cases we will highlight remaining questions and controversies and ongoing trials, which will hopefully shed light in these areas. In addition to reviewing existing agents, we take a look forward at the most promising new antithrombotics currently in late-stage clinical development and their potential role in the context of ACS management.
|
|
| 8. |
- Cannon, Christopher P., et al.
(author)
-
Dual Antithrombotic Therapy with Dabigatran after PCI in Atrial Fibrillation.
- 2017
-
In: New England Journal of Medicine. - : Massachusetts Medical Society. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 377:16, s. 1513-1524
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Triple antithrombotic therapy with warfarin plus two antiplatelet agents is the standard of care after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with atrial fibrillation, but this therapy is associated with a high risk of bleeding.METHODS: inhibitor (clopidogrel or ticagrelor) and no aspirin (110-mg and 150-mg dual-therapy groups). Outside the United States, elderly patients (≥80 years of age; ≥70 years of age in Japan) were randomly assigned to the 110-mg dual-therapy group or the triple-therapy group. The primary end point was a major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding event during follow-up (mean follow-up, 14 months). The trial also tested for the noninferiority of dual therapy with dabigatran (both doses combined) to triple therapy with warfarin with respect to the incidence of a composite efficacy end point of thromboembolic events (myocardial infarction, stroke, or systemic embolism), death, or unplanned revascularization.RESULTS: The incidence of the primary end point was 15.4% in the 110-mg dual-therapy group as compared with 26.9% in the triple-therapy group (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42 to 0.63; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P<0.001 for superiority) and 20.2% in the 150-mg dual-therapy group as compared with 25.7% in the corresponding triple-therapy group, which did not include elderly patients outside the United States (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.88; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The incidence of the composite efficacy end point was 13.7% in the two dual-therapy groups combined as compared with 13.4% in the triple-therapy group (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.29; P=0.005 for noninferiority). The rate of serious adverse events did not differ significantly among the groups.CONCLUSIONS: inhibitor, and aspirin. Dual therapy was noninferior to triple therapy with respect to the risk of thromboembolic events. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; RE-DUAL PCI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02164864)
|
|
| 9. |
- Eccleston, David S., et al.
(author)
-
The effect of sex on the efficacy and safety of dual antithrombotic therapy with dabigatran versus triple therapy with warfarin after PCI in patients with atrial fibrillation (a RE-DUAL PCI subgroup analysis and comparison to other dual antithrombotic therapy trials)
- 2021
-
In: Clinical Cardiology. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 0160-9289 .- 1932-8737. ; 44:7, s. 1002-1010
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BackgroundThe RE-DUAL PCI trial demonstrated that in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), dual therapy with dabigatran and a P2Y12 inhibitor, either clopidogrel or ticagrelor, reduced the risk of bleeding without an increased risk of thromboembolic events as compared to triple therapy with warfarin in addition to a P2Y12 inhibitor and aspirin. What remains unclear is whether this effect is consistent between males and females undergoing PCI.HypothesisThe reduction in risk of bleeding without increased risk of thromboembolic events with dual therapy with dabigatran and a P2Y12 inhibitor in comparison to triple therapy with warfarin, a P2Y12 inhibitor and aspirin is consistent in females and males.MethodsThe primary safety endpoint was the first International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) major bleeding event (MBE) or clinically relevant non-major bleeding event (CRNMBE). The efficacy endpoint was the composite of death, thromboembolic event (stroke, myocardial infarction, and systemic embolism) or unplanned revascularization. Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were applied to calculate corresponding hazard ratios and interaction p values for each endpoint.ResultsA total of 655 women and 2070 men were enrolled. The risk of major or CRNM bleeding was lower with both dabigatran 110 mg dual therapy and dabigatran 150 mg dual therapy compared with warfarin triple therapy in female and male patients (for 110 mg: females: HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.47–1.01, males: HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.37–0.59, interaction p value: 0.084 and for 150 mg: females HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.48–1.16, males HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56–0.90, interaction p value: 0.83). There was also no detectable difference in the composite efficacy endpoint of death, thromboembolic events or unplanned revascularization between dabigatran dual therapy and warfarin triple therapy, with no statistically significant interaction between sex and treatment (interaction p values: 0.73 and 0.72, respectively).ConclusionsConsistent with the overall study results, the risk of bleeding was lower with dabigatran 110 mg and 150 mg dual therapy compared with warfarin triple therapy, and risk of thromboembolic events was comparable with warfarin triple therapy independent of the patient's sex.
|
|
| 10. |
- Goodman, Shaun G., et al.
(author)
-
Association of Proton Pump Inhibitor Use on Cardiovascular Outcomes With Clopidogrel and Ticagrelor : Outcomes With Clopidogrel and Ticagrelor
- 2012
-
In: Circulation. - 0009-7322 .- 1524-4539. ; 125:8, s. 978-986
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background-The clinical significance of the interaction between clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) remains unclear. Methods and Results-We examined the relationship between PPI use and 1-year cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) in patients with acute coronary syndrome randomized to clopidogrel or ticagrelor in a prespecified, nonrandomized subgroup analysis of the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial. The primary end point rates were higher for individuals on a PPI (n = 6539) compared with those not on a PPI (n = 12 060) at randomization in both the clopidogrel (13.0% versus 10.9%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04 -1.38) and ticagrelor (11.0% versus 9.2%; HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.07-1.45) groups. Patients on non-PPI gastrointestinal drugs had similar primary end point rates compared with those on a PPI (PPI versus non-PPI gastrointestinal treatment: clopidogrel, HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79-1.23; ticagrelor, HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.73-1.10). In contrast, patients on no gastric therapy had a significantly lower primary end point rate (PPI versus no gastrointestinal treatment: clopidogrel, HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.12-1.49; ticagrelor, HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.14-1.49). Conclusions-The use of a PPI was independently associated with a higher rate of cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome receiving clopidogrel. However, a similar association was observed between cardiovascular events and PPI use during ticagrelor treatment and with other non-PPI gastrointestinal treatment. Therefore, in the PLATO trial, the association between PPI use and adverse events may be due to confounding, with PPI use more of a marker for, than a cause of, higher rates of cardiovascular events.
|
|
