Transitioning to active-controlled trials to evaluate cardiovascular safety and efficacy of medications for type 2 diabetes.

Cardiovascular (CV) outcome trials (CVOTs) of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) therapies have mostly used randomized comparison with placebo to demonstrate non-inferiority to establish that the investigational drug does not increase CV risk. Recently, several glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) and sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) demonstrated reduced CV risk. Consequently, future T2DM therapy trials could face new ethical and clinical challenges if CVOTs continue with the traditional, placebo-controlled design. To address this challenge, here we review the methodologic considerations in transitioning to active-controlled CVOTs and describe the statistical design of a CVOT to assess non-inferiority versus an active comparator and if non-inferiority is proven, using novel methods to assess for superiority versus an imputed placebo. Specifically, as an example of such methodology, we introduce the statistical considerations used for the design of the "Effect of Tirzepatide versus Dulaglutide on Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE) in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes" trial (SURPASS CVOT). It is the first active-controlled CVOT assessing antihyperglycemic therapy in patients with T2DM designed to demonstrate CV efficacy of the investigational drug, tirzepatide, a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and GLP-1 RA, by establishing non-inferiority to an active comparator with proven CV efficacy, dulaglutide. To determine the efficacy margin for the hazard ratio, tirzepatide versus dulaglutide, for the composite CV outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (MACE-3), which is required to claim superiority versus an imputed placebo, the lower bound of efficacy of dulaglutide compared with placebo was estimated using a hierarchical Bayesian meta-analysis of placebo-controlled CVOTs of GLP-1 RAs. SURPASS CVOT was designed so that when the observed upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio is less than the lower bound of efficacy of dulaglutide, it demonstrates non-inferiority to dulaglutide by preserving at least 50% of the CV benefit of dulaglutide as well as statistical superiority of tirzepatide to a theoretical placebo (imputed placebo analysis). The presented methods adding imputed placebo comparison for efficacy assessment may serve as a model for the statistical design of future active-controlled CVOTs.

Tirzepatide versus insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes and increased cardiovascular risk (SURPASS-4): a randomised, open-label, parallel-group, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess efficacy and safety, with a special focus on cardiovascular safety, of the novel dual GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonist tirzepatide versus insulin glargine in adults with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk inadequately controlled on oral glucose-lowering medications. METHODS: This open-label, parallel-group, phase 3 study was done in 187 sites in 14 countries on five continents. Eligible participants, aged 18 years or older, had type 2 diabetes treated with any combination of metformin, sulfonylurea, or sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor, a baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) of 7·5-10·5% (58-91 mmol/mol), body-mass index of 25 kg/m2 or greater, and established cardiovascular disease or a high risk of cardiovascular events. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:3) via an interactive web-response system to subcutaneous injection of either once-per-week tirzepatide (5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg) or glargine (100 U/mL), titrated to reach fasting blood glucose of less than 100 mg/dL. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority (0·3% non-inferiority boundary) of tirzepatide 10 mg or 15 mg, or both, versus glargine in HbA1c change from baseline to 52 weeks. All participants were treated for at least 52 weeks, with treatment continued for a maximum of 104 weeks or until study completion to collect and adjudicate major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Safety measures were assessed over the full study period. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03730662. FINDINGS: Patients were recruited between Nov 20, 2018, and Dec 30, 2019. 3045 participants were screened, with 2002 participants randomly assigned to tirzepatide or glargine. 1995 received at least one dose of tirzepatide 5 mg (n=329, 17%), 10 mg (n=328, 16%), or 15 mg (n=338, 17%), or glargine (n=1000, 50%), and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. At 52 weeks, mean HbA1c changes with tirzepatide were -2·43% (SD 0·05) with 10 mg and -2·58% (0·05) with 15 mg, versus -1·44% (0·03) with glargine. The estimated treatment difference versus glargine was -0·99% (multiplicity adjusted 97·5% CI -1·13 to -0·86) for tirzepatide 10 mg and -1·14% (-1·28 to -1·00) for 15 mg, and the non-inferiority margin of 0·3% was met for both doses. Nausea (12-23%), diarrhoea (13-22%), decreased appetite (9-11%), and vomiting (5-9%) were more frequent with tirzepatide than glargine (nausea 2%, diarrhoea 4%, decreased appetite <1%, and vomiting 2%, respectively); most cases were mild to moderate and occurred during the dose-escalation phase. The percentage of participants with hypoglycaemia (glucose <54 mg/dL or severe) was lower with tirzepatide (6-9%) versus glargine (19%), particularly in participants not on sulfonylureas (tirzepatide 1-3% vs glargine 16%). Adjudicated MACE-4 events (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalisation for unstable angina) occurred in 109 participants and were not increased on tirzepatide compared with glargine (hazard ratio 0·74, 95% CI 0·51-1·08). 60 deaths (n=25 [3%] tirzepatide; n=35 [4%] glargine) occurred during the study. INTERPRETATION: In people with type 2 diabetes and elevated cardiovascular risk, tirzepatide, compared with glargine, demonstrated greater and clinically meaningful HbA1c reduction with a lower incidence of hypoglycaemia at week 52. Tirzepatide treatment was not associated with excess cardiovascular risk. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Effect of C-Reactive Protein on Lipoprotein(a)-Associated Cardiovascular Risk in Optimally Treated Patients With High-Risk Vascular Disease: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of the ACCELERATE Trial.

Importance: Although lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is a causal genetic risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, it remains unclear which patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease stand to benefit the most from Lp(a) lowering. Whether inflammation can modulate Lp(a)-associated cardiovascular (CV) risk during secondary prevention is unknown. Objective: To examine whether Lp(a)-associated CV risk is modulated by systemic inflammation in optimally treated patients at high risk of CV disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: A prespecified secondary post hoc analysis of the double-blind, multicenter randomized clinical Assessment of Clinical Effects of Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein Inhibition With Evacetrapib in Patients at a High Risk for Vascular Outcomes (ACCELERATE) trial was conducted between October 1, 2012, and December 31, 2013; the study was terminated October 12, 2015. The study was conducted at 543 academic and community hospitals in 36 countries among 12 092 patients at high risk of CV disease (acute coronary syndrome, stroke, peripheral arterial disease, or type 2 diabetes with coronary artery disease) with measurable Lp(a) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) levels during treatment. Statistical analysis for this post hoc analysis was performed from September 26, 2018, to March 28, 2020. Interventions: Participants received evacetrapib, 130 mg/d, or matching placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The ACCELERATE trial found no significant benefit or harm of evacetrapib on 30-month major adverse cardiovascular events (CV death, myocardial infarction [MI], stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina). This secondary analysis evaluated rates of CV death, MI, and stroke across levels of Lp(a). Results: High-sensitivity C-reactive protein and Lp(a) levels were measured in 10 503 patients (8135 men; 8561 white; 10 134 received concurrent statins; mean [SD] age, 64.6 [9.4] years). In fully adjusted analyses, in patients with hsCRP of 2 mg/L or more but not less than 2 mg/L, increasing quintiles of Lp(a) were significantly associated with greater rates of death, MI, and stroke (P = .006 for interaction). Each unit increase in log Lp(a) levels was associated with a 13% increased risk of CV death, nonfatal MI, or stroke only in those with hsCRP levels of 2 mg/L or more (P = .008 for interaction). There was also a significant stepwise relationship between increasing Lp(a) quintiles and time to first CV death, MI, or stroke (log-rank P < .001) when hsCRP levels were 2 mg/L or more but not less than 2 mg/L. Sensitivity analyses in the ACCELERATE placebo-treated group yielded similar significant associations exclusively in the group with hsCRP of 2 mg/L or more. Conclusions and Relevance: Elevated Lp(a) levels during treatment are related to CV death, MI, and stroke when hsCRP levels are 2 mg/L or more but not less than 2mg/L. This finding suggests a potential benefit of lowering Lp(a) in patients with residual systemic inflammation despite receipt of optimal medical therapy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01687998.

Designing, Conducting, Monitoring, and Analyzing Data from Pragmatic Randomized Clinical Trials: Proceedings from a Multi-stakeholder Think Tank Meeting.

In late 2018, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) outlined a framework for evaluating the possible use of real-world evidence (RWE) to support regulatory decision-making. This framework was created to facilitate studies that would generate high-quality RWE, including pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs), which are randomized trials designed to inform clinical or policy decisions by assessing the real-world effectiveness of an intervention. There is general agreement among experts that the use of existing healthcare and patient-generated data holds promise for making randomized trials more efficient, less costly, and more generalizable. Yet the benefits of relying on real-world data sources must be weighed against difficulties with ensuring data integrity and completeness. Additionally, appropriately monitoring patient safety in randomized trials of new drugs using healthcare system data that might not be available in real time can be quite difficult. Recognizing that these and other concerns are critical to the development and acceptability of PCTs, a group of stakeholders from academia, industry, professional organizations, regulatory bodies, government agencies, and patient advocates discussed a path forward for PCT growth and sustainability at a think tank meeting entitled "Monitoring and Analyzing Data from Pragmatic Streamlined Randomized Clinical Trials," which took place in January 2019 (Washington, DC). The goals of this meeting were to: (1) evaluate study design and methodological options specific to PCTs that have the potential to yield high-quality evidence; (2) discuss best practices to ensure data quality in PCTs; and (3) identify appropriate methods for study monitoring. Proceedings from the think tank meeting are summarized in this manuscript.

Effect of CETP inhibition with evacetrapib in patients with diabetes mellitus enrolled in the ACCELERATE trial.

BACKGROUND: High-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels are inversely associated with cardiovascular risk. Cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibition with evacetrapib results in a marked increase in HDL and reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels. We evaluated the impact of treatment with evacetrapib versus placebo in the subset of 8236 patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) enrolled in the Assessment of Clinical Effects of Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein Inhibition with Evacetrapib in Patients at a High Risk for Vascular Outcomes trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Time to first occurrence of any component of the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization, and hospitalization for unstable angina was compared among patients with DM randomized to treatment with evacetrapib (n=4127) or placebo (n=4109) over a median of 26 months of follow-up. The mean baseline LDL at initiation was 80 mg/dL with a mean baseline HDL of 44 mg/dL. In patients with DM, evacetrapib resulted in a 131% mean increase in HDL levels and a 32% mean decrease in LDL at 3 months that was sustained during the course of the trial. At 6 months, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels were lower with evacetrapib than placebo (7.08% vs 7.15%, p=0.023). Composite event rates were higher in patients with DM than without DM (Kaplan-Meier estimates: 15.2% vs 10.6%, HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.64, p<0.001). In the DM group, event rates for the composite endpoint (14.5% evacetrapib vs 16% placebo, HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07, p=0.38) and individual components of the composite were similar for both evacetrapib and placebo groups. No significant treatment interaction between treatment assignment and diabetes status was noted. CONCLUSION: Despite a favorable increase in HDL, and decreases in LDL and HbA1c levels in patients with DM, we observed no benefits of treatment with evacetrapib on prespecified clinical outcomes in this high-risk population.

Impact of Regulatory Guidance on Evaluating Cardiovascular Risk of New Glucose-Lowering Therapies to Treat Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Lessons Learned and Future Directions.

Responding to concerns about the potential for increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, specifically myocardial infarction, associated with certain glucose-lowering therapies, the US Food and Drug Administration and the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency issued guidance to the pharmaceutical industry in 2008. Glucose-lowering therapies were granted regulatory approval primarily from smaller studies that have demonstrated reductions in glycated hemoglobin concentration. Such studies were overall underpowered and of insufficient duration to show any effect on cardiovascular outcomes. The 2008 guidance aimed to ensure the cardiovascular safety of new glucose-lowering therapies to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This resulted in a plethora of new cardiovascular outcome trials, most designed primarily as placebo-controlled noninferiority trials, but with many also powered for superiority. Several of these outcome trials demonstrated cardiovascular benefits of the newer agents, resulting in the first-ever cardiovascular protection indications for glucose-lowering therapies. Determining whether the guidance continues to have value in its current form is critically important as we move forward after the first decade of implementation. In February 2018, a think tank comprising representatives from academia, industry, and regulatory agencies convened to consider the guidance in light of the findings of the completed cardiovascular outcome trials. The group made several recommendations for future regulatory guidance and for cardiovascular outcome trials of glucose-lowering therapies. These recommendations include requiring only the 1.3 noninferiority margin for regulatory approval, conducting trials for longer durations, considering studying glucose-lowering therapies as first-line management of type 2 diabetes mellitus, considering heart failure or kidney outcomes within the primary outcome, considering head-to-head active comparator trials, increasing the diversity of patients enrolled, evaluating strategies to streamline registries and the study of unselected populations, and identifying ways to improve translation of trial results to general practice.

The dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, tirzepatide, improves lipoprotein biomarkers associated with insulin resistance and cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To better understand the marked decrease in serum triglycerides observed with tirzepatide in patients with type 2 diabetes, additional lipoprotein-related biomarkers were measured post hoc in available samples from the same study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive once-weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide (1, 5, 10 or 15 mg), dulaglutide (1.5 mg) or placebo. Serum lipoprotein profile, apolipoprotein (apo) A-I, B and C-III and preheparin lipoprotein lipase (LPL) were measured at baseline and at 4, 12 and 26 weeks. Lipoprotein particle profile by nuclear magnetic resonance was assessed at baseline and 26 weeks. The lipoprotein insulin resistance (LPIR) score was calculated. RESULTS: At 26 weeks, tirzepatide dose-dependently decreased apoB and apoC-III levels, and increased serum preheparin LPL compared with placebo. Tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg decreased large triglyceride-rich lipoprotein particles (TRLP), small low-density lipoprotein particles (LDLP) and LPIR score compared with both placebo and dulaglutide. Treatment with dulaglutide also reduced apoB and apoC-III levels but had no effect on either serum LPL or large TRLP, small LDLP and LPIR score. The number of total LDLP was also decreased with tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg compared with placebo. A greater reduction in apoC-III with tirzepatide was observed in patients with high compared with normal baseline triglycerides. At 26 weeks, change in apoC-III, but not body weight, was the best predictor of changes in triglycerides with tirzepatide, explaining up to 22.9% of their variability. CONCLUSIONS: Tirzepatide treatment dose-dependently decreased levels of apoC-III and apoB and the number of large TRLP and small LDLP, suggesting a net improvement in atherogenic lipoprotein profile.

Impact of Baseline Glycemic Control on Residual Cardiovascular Risk in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus and High-Risk Vascular Disease Treated With Statin Therapy.

Background The contemporary impact of glycemic control on patients with diabetes mellitus at high cardiovascular risk remains unclear. We evaluated the utility of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) as a marker of risk on the composite end point of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, and coronary revascularization in an optimally treated population with diabetes mellitus and established coronary artery disease enrolled in the ACCELERATE (Assessment of Clinical Effects of Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein Inhibition With Evacetrapib in Patients at a High Risk for Vascular Outcomes) trial. Methods and Results We included all patients with established diabetes mellitus and measured HbA1c (N=8145) and estimated Kaplan-Meier (KM) events rates, stratified by increasing baseline HbA1c levels censored at 30 months. We then performed a multivariable regression for the primary end point. Increasing baseline HbA1c was strongly associated with the occurrence of the primary end point (KM estimate, 12.6-18.2; P<0.001). Increasing baseline HbA1c was also associated with the triple end point of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and stroke (KM estimate, 7.8-11.3; P=0.003) as well as the individual end points of nonfatal myocardial infarction (KM estimate, 3.1-7.0; P<0.001), hospitalization for unstable angina (KM estimate, 1.8-5.0; P=0.003), and revascularization (KM estimate, 7.3-11.1; P=0.001), although not stroke (KM estimate, 1.4-2.4; P=0.45). The rates of cardiovascular mortality (KM estimate, 2.6-4.3; P=0.21) and all-cause mortality (KM estimate, 4.8-5.9; P=0.21) were similar regardless of baseline HbA1c levels. When adjusting for relevant baseline characteristics, baseline HbA1c was an independent predictor for the primary end point (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11; P=0.003). Conclusions Glycemic control, as measured by HbA1c, remains strongly and independently associated with cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients with diabetes mellitus on statin therapy. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01687998.

Plasma Aldosterone Levels Are Not Associated With Cardiovascular Events Among Patients With High-Risk Vascular Disease: Insights From the ACCELERATE Trial.

Background The failure of cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor torcetrapib was associated with an off-target increase in plasma aldosterone. We sought to evaluate the impact of evacetrapib on plasma aldosterone level and determine the association between plasma aldosterone level and major adverse cardiovascular events among patients with stable high-risk vascular disease enrolled in the ACCELERATE (Assessment of Clinical Effects of Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein Inhibition With Evacetrapib in Patients at a High Risk for Vascular Outcomes) trial. Methods and Results We included all patients with a plasma aldosterone level (N=1624) and determined the impact of evacetrapib exposure compared with placebo on plasma aldosterone levels after 12 months of treatment. Using baseline and postexposure aldosterone levels, hazard ratios for major adverse cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, hospitalization for unstable angina, and revascularization) with increasing quartile of baseline and percentage change in plasma aldosterone level at follow-up were calculated. The average age was 65.2 years, 75.7% were men, 93.7% were hypertensive, 73.3% were diabetic, and 57.6% had a prior myocardial infarction. Baseline plasma aldosterone level (85.2 [43, 150] versus 86.8 [43, 155] pmol/L; P=0.81) and follow-up percentage change (13.6% [-29, 88] versus 17.9% [-24, 87]; P=0.23) were similar between those who received evacetrapib and placebo. During median follow-up of 28 months, major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 263 patients (16.2%). The hazard ratios for increasing quartile of baseline or percentage change in plasma aldosterone level at follow-up were not significant for major adverse cardiovascular events. These findings remained consistent when adjusting for significant characteristics. Conclusions Exposure to evacetrapib did not result in significant change in plasma aldosterone levels compared with placebo. Among patients with stable high-risk vascular disease, plasma aldosterone levels were not a predictor for future cardiovascular events. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01687998.

Dulaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes (REWIND): a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Three different glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists reduce cardiovascular outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk with high glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) concentrations. We assessed the effect of the GLP-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide on major adverse cardiovascular events when added to the existing antihyperglycaemic regimens of individuals with type 2 diabetes with and without previous cardiovascular disease and a wide range of glycaemic control. METHODS: This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was done at 371 sites in 24 countries. Men and women aged at least 50 years with type 2 diabetes who had either a previous cardiovascular event or cardiovascular risk factors were randomly assigned (1:1) to either weekly subcutaneous injection of dulaglutide (1·5 mg) or placebo. Randomisation was done by a computer-generated random code with stratification by site. All investigators and participants were masked to treatment assignment. Participants were followed up at least every 6 months for incident cardiovascular and other serious clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was the first occurrence of the composite endpoint of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes (including unknown causes), which was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01394952. FINDINGS: Between Aug 18, 2011, and Aug 14, 2013, 9901 participants (mean age 66·2 years [SD 6·5], median HbA1c 7·2% [IQR 6·6-8·1], 4589 [46·3%] women) were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive dulaglutide (n=4949) or placebo (n=4952). During a median follow-up of 5·4 years (IQR 5·1-5·9), the primary composite outcome occurred in 594 (12·0%) participants at an incidence rate of 2·4 per 100 person-years in the dulaglutide group and in 663 (13·4%) participants at an incidence rate of 2·7 per 100 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·88, 95% CI 0·79-0·99; p=0·026). All-cause mortality did not differ between groups (536 [10·8%] in the dulaglutide group vs 592 [12·0%] in the placebo group; HR 0·90, 95% CI 0·80-1·01; p=0·067). 2347 (47·4%) participants assigned to dulaglutide reported a gastrointestinal adverse event during follow-up compared with 1687 (34·1%) participants assigned to placebo (p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Dulaglutide could be considered for the management of glycaemic control in middle-aged and older people with type 2 diabetes with either previous cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular risk factors. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Baseline fasting plasma insulin levels predict risk for major adverse cardiovascular events among patients with diabetes and high-risk vascular disease: Insights from the ACCELERATE trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite optimal treatment, type II diabetes mellitus remains associated with an increased risk for future cardiovascular events. We sought to determine the association between baseline fasting plasma insulin levels and major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type II diabetes mellitus and high-risk vascular disease enrolled in the ACCELERATE (Assessment of Clinical Effects of Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein Inhibition with Evacetrapib in Patients at a High Risk for Vascular Outcomes) trial. METHODS: We included all patients with type II diabetes mellitus who had a central laboratory measured fasting plasma insulin level drawn at baseline as part of the study protocol. Hazard ratios were generated for the risk of major adverse cardiovascular outcomes (composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina and coronary revascularization) with increasing quartile of baseline fasting plasma insulin level. We then performed a multivariable regression adjusting for significant baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Among 12,092 patients in ACCELERATE, 2042 patients with type II diabetes mellitus had a baseline fasting plasma insulin level drawn. Median follow-up was 28 months. The study population had a mean age of 66.6 years, 79.2% male and 96.2% had established coronary artery disease. During follow-up, major adverse cardiovascular outcomes occurred in 238 patients (11.6%); of these events, 177 were coronary revascularization (8.7%). We observed a statistically significant relationship between rates of revascularization and rising quartile of baseline fasting plasma insulin level which was not noted for the other individual components of major adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Patients with type II diabetes mellitus who underwent revascularization were noted to have significantly higher baseline fasting plasma insulin levels (27.7 vs 21.4 mU/L, p-value = 0.009) although baseline haemoglobin A1c (6.63% vs 6.55%), body mass index (31.5 vs 31.1 kg/m2) and medical therapy were otherwise similar to the group not undergoing revascularization. Following multivariable regression adjusting for significant characteristics including exposure to evacetrapib, the log of baseline fasting plasma insulin level was found to be an independent predictor for major adverse cardiovascular outcomes (hazard ratio = 1.36, 95% confidence interval = 1.09-1.69, p-value = 0.007); this was driven by need for future revascularization (hazard ratio = 1.56, 95% confidence interval = 1.21-2.00, p-value = 0.001). CONCLUSION: In a contemporary population of patients with type II diabetes mellitus and high-risk vascular disease on optimum medical therapy, baseline hyperinsulinaemia was an independent predictor for major adverse cardiovascular outcomes and need of future coronary revascularization. These results suggest a pathophysiological link between hyperinsulinaemia and progression of atherosclerotic vascular disease among diabetics.

Generalizability of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist cardiovascular outcome trials to the overall type 2 diabetes population in the United States.

AIM: To examine the generalizability of results from glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) in the US type 2 diabetes (T2D) population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients enrolled or eligible for inclusion in four CVOTs (EXSCEL, LEADER, REWIND, and SUSTAIN-6) were examined in reference to a retrospective clinical database weighted to match the age and sex distribution of the US adult T2D population. We descriptively compared key baseline characteristics of the populations enrolled in each trial to those of the reference population and estimated the proportions of individuals in the reference population represented by those in the trials for each characteristic. We also estimated the proportions of individuals in the reference population that might have been enrolled in each trial based upon meeting the trial inclusion and exclusion (I/E) criteria. RESULTS: No trial's enrolled population perfectly matched the reference population in key characteristics. The EXSCEL population most closely matched in mean age (62.7 vs. 60.5 years) and percentage with estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 (18.6 vs. 17.3%), while REWIND most closely matched in HbA1c, sex distribution, and proportion with a prior myocardial infarction. Based on I/E criteria, 42.6% of the reference population were eligible for enrolment in REWIND, versus 15.9% in EXSCEL, 13.0% in SUSTAIN-6, and 12.9% in LEADER. CONCLUSIONS: Although none of the trials are fully representative of the general population, among the four trials examined, results from baseline REWIND were found to be more generalizable to the US adult T2D population than those of other GLP-1 RA CVOTs.

ADCY9 Genetic Variants and Cardiovascular Outcomes With Evacetrapib in Patients With High-Risk Vascular Disease: A Nested Case-Control Study.

Importance: A pharmacogenetic analysis of dalcetrapib, a cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor, reported an association between a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the ADCY9 gene (rs1967309) and reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events despite a neutral result for the overall trial. Objective: To determine whether the association between the SNP in the ADCY9 gene and a reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events could be replicated for another cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor, evacetrapib, in patients with high-risk vascular disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: A nested case-control study examining the rs1967309 SNP in 1427 cases and 1532 matched controls selected from the 12 092-patient Assessment of Clinical Effects of Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein Inhibition with Evacetrapib in Patients at a High Risk for Vascular Outcomes (ACCELERATE) trial, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial conducted in patients with high-risk vascular disease randomized from October 2012 through December 2013. The genotyping was conducted from January 2017 to March 2017, and the data analyses were conducted from July 2017 to November 2017. Exposures: Evacetrapib, 130 mg, or matching placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary analyses used a conditional logistic regression model to assess the odds ratio (OR) for major adverse cardiovascular events for evacetrapib compared with placebo for each genotype. The basic model included adjustment for age, sex, and the top 5 principal components. An additional model included cardiovascular risk factors to adjust for potential bias in selecting control patients. The primary major adverse cardiovascular event end point was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Results: For patients with the AA genotype reported to demonstrate a beneficial effect from dalcetrapib, the OR for evacetrapib compared with placebo was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.69-1.12). For patients with the AG genotype, the OR was 1.04 (95% CI, 0.90-1.21). For patients with the GG genotype reported to show evidence for a harmful effect from dalcetrapib, the OR for evacetrapib was 1.18 (95% CI, 0.98-1.41). The interaction P value among the 3 genotypes was P = .17 and the trend P value was P = .06. When adjusted for cardiovascular risk factors, the OR for evacetrapib was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.73-1.19) for the AA genotype, 1.05 (95% CI, 0.91-1.22) for the AG genotype, and 1.02 (95% CI 0.85-1.24) for the GG genotype; interaction P = .71 and trend P = .59. Conclusions and Relevance: Pharmacogenetic analysis did not show a significant association between the ADCY9 SNP (rs1967309) and cardiovascular benefit or harm for the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor evacetrapib.

Efficacy and Safety of the Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein Inhibitor Evacetrapib in Combination With Atorvastatin in Japanese Patients With Primary Hypercholesterolemia.

BACKGROUND: Inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein by evacetrapib when added to atorvastatin may provide an additional treatment option for patients who do not reach their low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal.Methods and Results:This multicenter, randomized, 12-week, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, outpatient, phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy of evacetrapib with atorvastatin in reducing LDL-C in 149 Japanese patients (evacetrapib/atorvastatin, n=53; ezetimibe/atorvastatin, n=50; placebo/atorvastatin, n=46) with primary hypercholesterolemia. The primary efficacy measure was percent change from baseline to week 12 in LDL-C (ß quantification). Treatment with evacetrapib 130 mg daily for 12 weeks resulted in a statistically significant treatment difference of -25.70% compared with placebo in percentage decrease in LDL-C (95% CI: -34.73 to -16.68; P<0.001). Treatment with evacetrapib 130 mg also resulted in a statistically significant difference of 126.39% in the change in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) compared with placebo (95% CI: 113.54-139.24; P<0.001). No deaths or serious adverse events were reported. Four patients (3 in the evacetrapib group and 1 in the ezetimibe group) discontinued due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Evacetrapib daily in combination with atorvastatin was superior to placebo in lowering LDL-C after 12 weeks, and resulted in a statistically significant increase of HDL-C compared with placebo. Also, no new safety risks were identified.

Navigating the Future of Cardiovascular Drug Development-Leveraging Novel Approaches to Drive Innovation and Drug Discovery: Summary of Findings from the Novel Cardiovascular Therapeutics Conference.

PURPOSE: The need for novel approaches to cardiovascular drug development served as the impetus to convene an open meeting of experts from the pharmaceutical industry and academia to assess the challenges and develop solutions for drug discovery in cardiovascular disease. METHODS: The Novel Cardiovascular Therapeutics Summit first reviewed recent examples of ongoing or recently completed programs translating basic science observations to targeted drug development, highlighting successes (protein convertase sutilisin/kexin type 9 [PCSK9] and neprilysin inhibition) and targets still under evaluation (cholesteryl ester transfer protein [CETP] inhibition), with the hope of gleaning key lessons to successful drug development in the current era. Participants then reviewed the use of innovative approaches being explored to facilitate rapid and more cost-efficient evaluations of drug candidates in a short timeframe. RESULTS: We summarize observations gleaned from this summit and offer insight into future cardiovascular drug development. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid development in genetic and high-throughput drug evaluation technologies, coupled with new approaches to rapidly evaluate potential cardiovascular therapies with in vitro techniques, offer opportunities to identify new drug targets for cardiovascular disease, study new therapies with better efficiency and higher throughput in the preclinical setting, and more rapidly bring the most promising therapies to human testing. However, there must be a critical interface between industry and academia to guide the future of cardiovascular drug development. The shared interest among academic institutions and pharmaceutical companies in developing promising therapies to address unmet clinical needs for patients with cardiovascular disease underlies and guides innovation and discovery platforms that are significantly altering the landscape of cardiovascular drug development.

Efficacy and Safety of Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein Inhibitor Evacetrapib Administered as Monotherapy in Japanese Patients With Primary Hypercholesterolemia.

BACKGROUND: Inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein with evacetrapib may provide an additional treatment option for patients who do not reach their low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal with statins or patients who cannot tolerate statins.Methods and Results:This multicenter, randomized, 12-week, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled, outpatient, phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy of evacetrapib in reducing LDL-C in 54 Japanese patients (27 evacetrapib, 27 placebo) with primary hypercholesterolemia. Primary efficacy measure was the percent change from baseline to week 12 in LDL-C (ß quantification). Treatment with evacetrapib 130 mg once daily for 12 weeks resulted in statistically significant (P<0.001) change in LDL-C (ß quantification) compared with placebo. Least-squares mean percentage changes from baseline were -34.3% in the evacetrapib group vs. 0.0% in the placebo group. Treatment with evacetrapib 130 mg also resulted in a statistically significant (P<0.001) increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol compared with placebo in mean percent change from baseline, with a least-squares mean difference of 124.0% (95% confidence interval: 104.6-143.5). No deaths, serious adverse events, or discontinuations because of adverse events were reported; 5 patients (18.5%) in the evacetrapib group and 7 patients (26.9%) in the placebo group experienced treatment-emergent adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily evacetrapib 130 mg monotherapy was superior to placebo in lowering LDL-C after 12 weeks. No new safety risks were identified.

Evacetrapib and Cardiovascular Outcomes in High-Risk Vascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: The cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor evacetrapib substantially raises the high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level, reduces the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level, and enhances cellular cholesterol efflux capacity. We sought to determine the effect of evacetrapib on major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with high-risk vascular disease. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, we enrolled 12,092 patients who had at least one of the following conditions: an acute coronary syndrome within the previous 30 to 365 days, cerebrovascular atherosclerotic disease, peripheral vascular arterial disease, or diabetes mellitus with coronary artery disease. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either evacetrapib at a dose of 130 mg or matching placebo, administered daily, in addition to standard medical therapy. The primary efficacy end point was the first occurrence of any component of the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina. RESULTS: At 3 months, a 31.1% decrease in the mean LDL cholesterol level was observed with evacetrapib versus a 6.0% increase with placebo, and a 133.2% increase in the mean HDL cholesterol level was seen with evacetrapib versus a 1.6% increase with placebo. After 1363 of the planned 1670 primary end-point events had occurred, the data and safety monitoring board recommended that the trial be terminated early because of a lack of efficacy. After a median of 26 months of evacetrapib or placebo, a primary end-point event occurred in 12.9% of the patients in the evacetrapib group and in 12.8% of those in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.91 to 1.11; P=0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Although the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor evacetrapib had favorable effects on established lipid biomarkers, treatment with evacetrapib did not result in a lower rate of cardiovascular events than placebo among patients with high-risk vascular disease. (Funded by Eli Lilly; ACCELERATE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01687998 .).

Comparative effects of cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibition, statin or ezetimibe on lipid factors: The ACCENTUATE trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The optimal approaches to management of patients treated with moderate statin doses on lipid parameters are unknown. The ACCENTUATE study aimed to compare the effects of adding the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor (CETP) evacetrapib, ezetimibe or increasing statin dose in atorvastatin-treated high-vascular risk patients on lipid parameters. METHODS: 366 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and/or diabetes were treated with atorvastatin 40 mg/day for 28 days prior to randomization to atorvastatin 40 mg plus evacetrapib 130 mg, atorvastatin 80 mg, atorvastatin 40 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg or atorvastatin 40 mg plus placebo, daily for 90 days at 64 centers in the United States. Lipid parameters, safety and tolerability were measured. RESULTS: Addition of evacetrapib significantly reduced LDL-C (-33%) compared with ezetimibe (-27%, p=0.045), increasing statin dose (-6%) and statin alone (0%, p<0.001). Evacetrapib also decreased apoB by 23% compared to 19% with ezetimibe (p=0.06) and 7% with increased statin dose (p<0.001), and reduced Lp(a) by 29% (p<0.001 vs. other groups). Evacetrapib increased HDL-C (+125%), apoA-I (+46%), apoC-III (+50%) and apoE (+28%) (p<0.001 vs. other groups). Non-ABCA1-mediated efflux increased by 53% (p<0.001 vs. other groups) with evacetrapib. ABCA1-mediated efflux also increased by 13% with evacetrapib (p<0.001 vs. ezetimibe, p=0.002 vs. increasing statin dose, and p=0.004 vs. statin alone). Addition of evacetrapib to atorvastatin produced an increase in hsCRP compared with ezetimibe (p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: While evacetrapib improved traditional atherogenic and putative protective lipid measures compared with ezetimibe and increasing statin dose in patients with ASCVD and/or diabetes, it also adversely affected novel atherogenic risk factors. These findings may contribute to the lack of clinical benefit observed in the ACCELERATE trial.