Magnitude of Urine Albumin and KIM-1 Changes Can be Used to Differentiate Glomerular Injury From Tubular Injury in Rats.

Emerging urinary kidney safety biomarkers have been evaluated in recent years and have been shown to be superior to the serum parameters blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and creatinine (sCr) for monitoring kidney injury in the proximal tubule. However, their potential application in differentiating the location of the initial kidney injury (eg, glomerulus vs tubule) has not been fully explored. Here, we assessed the performance of two algorithms that were constructed using either an empirical or a mathematical model to predict the site of kidney injury using a data set consisting of 22 rat kidney toxicity studies with known urine biomarker and histopathologic outcomes. Two kidney safety biomarkers used in both models, kidney injury molecule 1 (KIM-1) and albumin (ALB), were the best performers to differentiate glomerular injury from tubular injury. The performance of algorithms using these two biomarkers against the gold standard of kidney histopathologic examination showed high sensitivity in differentiating the location of the kidney damage to either the glomerulus or the proximal tubules. These data support the exploration of such an approach for use in clinical settings, leveraging urinary biomarker data to aid in the diagnosis of either glomerular or tubular injury where histopathologic assessments are not conducted.

A Microdose Cocktail to Evaluate Drug Interactions in Patients with Renal Impairment.

Renal impairment (RI) is known to influence the pharmacokinetics of nonrenally eliminated drugs, although the mechanism and clinical impact is poorly understood. We assessed the impact of RI and single dose oral rifampin (RIF) on the pharmacokinetics of CYP3A, OATP1B, P-gp, and BCRP substrates using a microdose cocktail and OATP1B endogenous biomarkers. RI alone had no impact on midazolam (MDZ), maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ), and area under the curve (AUC), but a progressive increase in AUC with RI severity for dabigatran (DABI), and up to ~2-fold higher AUC for pitavastatin (PTV), rosuvastatin (RSV), and atorvastatin (ATV) for all degrees of RI was observed. RIF did not impact MDZ, had a progressively smaller DABI drug-drug interaction (DDI) with increasing RI severity, a similar 3.1-fold to 4.4-fold increase in PTV and RSV AUC in healthy volunteers and patients with RI, and a diminishing DDI with RI severity from 6.1-fold to 4.7-fold for ATV. Endogenous biomarkers of OATP1B (bilirubin, coproporphyrin I/III, and sulfated bile salts) were generally not impacted by RI, and RIF effects on these biomarkers in RI were comparable or larger than those in healthy volunteers. The lack of a trend with RI severity of PTV and several OATP1B biomarkers, suggests that mechanisms beyond RI directly impacting OATP1B activity could also be considered. The DABI, RSV, and ATV data suggest an impact of RI on intestinal P-gp, and potentially BCRP activity. Therefore, DDI data from healthy volunteers may represent a worst-case scenario for clinically derisking P-gp and BCRP substrates in the setting of RI.

Comparative Analysis of Multiplex Platforms for Detecting Vitreous Biomarkers in Diabetic Retinopathy.

Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility of using the Proximity Extension Assay (PEA) platform to detect biomarkers in vitreous and to compare the findings with results obtained with an electrochemiluminescent (ECL) sandwich immunoassay. Methods: Vitreous samples from patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) and non-diabetic controls were tested using two different proteomics platforms. Forty-one assays were completed with the ECL platform and 459 with the PEA platform. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (rs ) was used to determine the direction and strength of the relationship between protein levels detected by both platforms. Results: Three hundred sixty-six PEA assays detected the tested protein in at least 25% of samples, and the difference in protein abundance between PDR and controls was statistically significant for 262 assays. Seventeen ECL assays yielded a detection rate ≥ 25%, and the difference in protein concentration between PDR and controls was statistically significant for 13 proteins. There was a subset of proteins that were detected by both platforms, and for those the Spearman's correlation coefficient was higher than 0.8. Conclusions: PEA is suitable for the analysis of vitreous samples, showing a strong correlation with the ECL platform. The detection rate of PEA panels was higher than the panels tested with ECL. The levels of several proinflammatory and angiogenic cytokines were significantly higher in PDR vitreous compared to controls. Translational Relevance: This study provides new information on the yields of small-volume assays that can detect proteins of interest in ocular specimens, and it identifies patterns of cytokine dysregulation in PDR.

Health-related quality of life of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer treated with ribociclib + letrozole: results from MONALEESA-2.

PURPOSE: Evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer treated with first-line ribociclib plus letrozole. METHODS: In the phase III MONALEESA-2 study (NCT01958021), 668 patients were randomized 1:1 to ribociclib (600 mg/day; 3-weeks-on/1-week-off) plus letrozole (2.5 mg/day) or placebo plus letrozole. PROs were assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer core quality-of-life (EORTC QLQ-C30) and breast cancer-specific (EORTC QLQ-BR23) questionnaires. Changes from baseline and time to deterioration in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were analyzed using linear mixed-effect and stratified Cox regression models, respectively. Exploratory analysis of area-under-the-curve for change from baseline in pain score (AUC-pain) was performed. RESULTS: On-treatment HRQoL scores were consistently maintained from baseline and were similar between arms. A clinically meaningful (> 5 points) reduction in pain score was observed as early as Week 8 and was maintained up to Cycle 15 in the ribociclib arm. A statistically significant increase in mean AUC-pain was also observed in the ribociclib arm. Scores for all other EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR23 domains were maintained from baseline and were similar between arms. CONCLUSIONS: HRQoL was consistently maintained from baseline in postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer receiving ribociclib plus letrozole and was similar to that observed in the placebo plus letrozole arm. Together with the improved clinical efficacy and manageable safety profile, these PRO results provide additional support for the benefit of ribociclib plus letrozole in this patient population.

First-line ribociclib plus letrozole in postmenopausal women with HR+ , HER2- advanced breast cancer: Tumor response and pain reduction in the phase 3 MONALEESA-2 trial.

PURPOSE: The phase 3 MONALEESA-2 study demonstrated that addition of ribociclib (RIB) to letrozole (LET) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients (pts) with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Here, we evaluated duration of response (DoR), tumor shrinkage, PFS by treatment-free interval (TFI), and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: Postmenopausal women (N = 668) with HR+ , HER2- ABC and no prior systemic therapy for ABC were randomized to RIB (600 mg/day; 3 weeks on/1 week off) plus LET (2.5 mg/day; continuous) or placebo (PBO) plus LET. Primary end point was PFS; HRQoL was the secondary end point; DoR was exploratory end point and PFS by TFI was post hoc analysis. RESULTS: Of 501 pts with measurable disease and confirmed complete or partial response, median DoR was 26.7 months (95% CI, 24.0-NR) in the RIB arm versus 18.6 months (95% CI, 14.8-23.1) in the PBO arm. At 8 weeks, more pts in the RIB arm (32%) versus the PBO arm (17%) experienced best percentage change ≥ 60%. The average pain reduction was greater in the RIB arm (26%) versus the PBO arm (15%). PFS benefit was seen with RIB vs PBO, irrespective of TFI. CONCLUSION: RIB plus LET versus PBO plus LET is associated with earlier and more durable tumor response, greater degree of tumor shrinkage and pain reduction, and PFS benefit irrespective of TFI. These data further support RIB plus LET as a first-line treatment option for postmenopausal women with HR+ , HER2- ABC.

Ribociclib with letrozole vs letrozole alone in elderly patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer in the randomized MONALEESA-2 trial.

PURPOSE: Determine the efficacy and safety of first-line ribociclib plus letrozole in elderly patients with HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer. METHODS: 668 postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer and no prior systemic therapy for advanced disease were enrolled in the Phase III MONALEESA-2 trial (NCT01958021); 295 patients were aged ≥ 65 years. Patients were randomized to ribociclib (600 mg/day; 3-weeks-on/1-week-off) plus letrozole (2.5 mg/day) or placebo plus letrozole until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, death, or treatment discontinuation. The primary endpoint was PFS, which was evaluated in elderly (≥ 65 years) and younger (< 65 years) patients. Secondary endpoints included response rates and safety. RESULTS: Ribociclib plus letrozole significantly improved PFS vs placebo plus letrozole in elderly (hazard ratio: 0.608; 95% CI 0.394-0.937) and younger patients (hazard ratio: 0.523; 95% CI 0.378-0.723). Overall response rates were numerically higher in the ribociclib vs placebo arm, regardless of age. Ribociclib plus letrozole was well tolerated in elderly patients, with the safety profile similar to the overall study population. Nausea, vomiting, alopecia, and diarrhea were > 10% more frequent in the ribociclib plus letrozole vs placebo plus letrozole arm in both subgroups; most events were grade 1/2. In elderly patients, grade 1/2 anemia and fatigue were > 10% more frequent in the ribociclib plus letrozole vs placebo plus letrozole arm and discontinuation rates were similar in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of ribociclib to letrozole is a valid therapeutic option for elderly patients with HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer in the first-line setting.

Activity and safety of ceritinib in patients with ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (ASCEND-1): updated results from the multicentre, open-label, phase 1 trial.

BACKGROUND: ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is sensitive to ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors (ALK inhibitors) such as crizotinib, but resistance invariably develops, often with progression in the brain. Ceritinib is a more potent ALK inhibitor than crizotinib in vitro, crosses the blood-brain barrier in vivo, and shows clinical responses in patients with crizotinib-resistant disease. We aimed to assess whole-body activity of ceritinib in both ALK inhibitor-pretreated and ALK inhibitor-naive patients with ALK-rearranged NSCLC. METHODS: ASCEND-1 was an open-label, phase 1 trial that recruited patients from 20 academic hospitals or cancer centres in 11 countries in Europe, North America, and Asia-Pacific. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with ALK-rearranged locally advanced or metastatic cancer that had progressed despite standard therapy (or for which no effective standard therapy existed), who had at least one measurable lesion at baseline. The primary objective (to determine the maximum tolerated dose) has been reported previously. This updated analysis includes all patients with ALK-rearranged NSCLC given oral ceritinib at the recommended dose of 750 mg/day in the dose-escalation and expansion phases. Here we report the secondary outcomes of overall response, duration of response, and progression-free survival, analysed in all patients who received at least one 750 mg dose of ceritinib. Exploratory analyses included retrospective analysis of intracranial activity by independent neuroradiologists, in patients with untreated or locally treated neurologically stable brain metastases at baseline. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of ceritinib. This study is no longer recruiting patients; however, treatment and follow-up are ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01283516. FINDINGS: Between Jan 24, 2011, and July 31, 2013, 255 patients were enrolled and received at least one dose of ceritinib 750 mg/day, of whom 246 had ALK-rearranged NSCLC. At data cutoff (April 14, 2014), median follow-up was 11·1 months (IQR 6·7-15·2) and 147 (60%) patients had discontinued treatment, 98 (40%) as a result of disease progression. An overall response was reported in 60 (72% [95% CI 61-82]) of 83 ALK inhibitor-naive patients and 92 (56% [49-64]) of 163 ALK inhibitor-pretreated patients. Median duration of response was 17·0 months (95% CI 11·3-non-estimable [NE]) in ALK inhibitor-naive patients and 8·3 months (6·8-9·7) in ALK inhibitor-pretreated patients. Median progression-free survival was 18·4 months (95% CI 11·1-NE) in ALK inhibitor-naive patients and 6·9 months (5·6-8·7) in ALK inhibitor-pretreated patients. Of 94 patients with retrospectively confirmed brain metastases and at least one post-baseline MRI or CT tumour assessment, intracranial disease control was reported in 15 (79% [95% CI 54-94]) of 19 ALK inhibitor-naive patients and in 49 (65% [54-76]) of 75 ALK inhibitor-pretreated patients. Of these 94 patients, 11 had measurable brain lesions and no previous radiotherapy to the brain, six of whom achieved a partial intracranial response. Serious adverse events were recorded in 117 (48%) of 246 patients. The most common grade 3-4 laboratory abnormalities were increased alanine aminotransferase (73 [30%] patients) and increased aspartate aminotransferase (25 [10%]). The most common grade 3-4 non-laboratory adverse events were diarrhoea and nausea, both of which occurred in 15 (6%) patients. Two on-treatment deaths during the study were deemed to be related to study drug by the investigators, one due to interstitial lung disease and one as a result of multiorgan failure that occurred in the context of infection and ischaemic hepatitis. INTERPRETATION: The durable whole-body responses reported, together with the intracranial activity, support a clinical benefit for treatment with ceritinib in patients with ALK-rearranged NSCLC who have received crizotinib, or as an alternative to crizotinib. A confirmatory phase 2 clinical trial is ongoing to assess ceritinib activity in patients with ALK-rearranged NSCLC and brain or leptomeningeal metastases. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

The effects of bazedoxifene on bone structural strength evaluated by hip structure analysis.

Bazedoxifene (BZA) is a selective estrogen receptor modulator that has been shown to prevent and treat postmenopausal osteoporosis. Hip structure analysis (HSA) can be used to extract bone structural properties related to strength from hip bone mineral density (BMD) scans. This exploratory analysis used HSA to evaluate changes in hip structural geometry in postmenopausal women enrolled in a phase 3 osteoporosis treatment study who were treated with BZA 20mg or placebo for 2 years. This analysis cohort included women at increased fracture risk based on known skeletal risk factors (n = 521); 1 or more moderate or severe fractures or 2 or more mild vertebral fractures and/or femoral neck BMD T-score ≤ -3.0 at baseline combined with additional women from the overall study population (n = 475); a subgroup analysis included just those women at increased fracture risk. HSA was applied to duplicate hip dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans acquired at screening and 24 months. Percent change from baseline was evaluated using an analysis of covariance for BMD and geometric parameters including section modulus (SM), cross-sectional area (CSA), outer diameter (OD), and buckling ratio (BR). In all regions, BZA was associated with increased BMD and improvements in hip structural geometry. In the narrow neck, BZA 20mg significantly increased SM, CSA, OD, and BMD compared with placebo (P < 0.05 for all). In the intertrochanter region, BZA 20mg significantly increased CSA and BMD and decreased BR compared with placebo (P < 0.05 for all). Other than BMD (P < 0.05), effects of BZA 20mg at the shaft did not reach statistical significance. Similar trends toward improvement in structural geometry with BZA 20mg were observed in all three regions of the hip for the subgroup of women at increased fracture risk. Overall, BZA was associated with geometry-related improvements in bone strength with regard to resistance to bending and compressive forces and to local buckling. These improvements were evident at common fracture locations such as the femoral neck and intertrochanter regions, and are consistent with the significant treatment effect reported for BZA on nonvertebral fractures in higher-risk postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Bazedoxifene versus oral bisphosphonates for the prevention of nonvertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at higher risk of fracture: a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of bazedoxifene and oral bisphosphonates for the prevention of nonvertebral fractures (NVFs) in women with higher risk of postmenopausal osteoporosis (i.e., the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool [FRAX] score ≥ 20%), based on currently available evidence from randomized controlled trials. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials evaluating the NVF relative risk reduction (RRR) with oral bisphosphonates or bazedoxifene were identified by a systematic literature review and combined by means of a network meta-analysis. A subgroup of patients with a FRAX score of 20% or more in the bazedoxifene phase III osteoporosis study was selected as the population of interest on the basis of the bazedoxifene label. In one analysis (analysis 1), the placebo response of the subgroup with a FRAX score of 20% or more was the benchmark to select comparable bisphosphonate trials. Additional analyses incorporated the aggregate data from the bisphosphonate trials with all the FRAX subgroups (analysis 2) or with the individual patient data from the bazedoxifene trial (analysis 3). RESULTS: Nine identified bisphosphonate trials (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate; N = 23,440 patients) with a similar placebo response as observed for the subgroup of high risk patients in the bazedoxifene trial were included in analysis 1. The results of the network meta-analysis of this study set suggest that bazedoxifene is expected to have an RRR of 0.43 (95% credible interval [CrI] -0.19 to 0.72) versus alendronate, 0.58 (95% CrI 0.05-0.81) versus ibandronate, and 0.39 (95% CrI -0.29 to 0.70) versus risedronate. Analyses in which treatment effects with bisphosphonates were projected to a population with a FRAX score of 20% or more with meta-regression approaches (analysis 2 and analysis 3) provide similar findings. CONCLUSION: Based on an indirect comparison of randomized trials, bazedoxifene is expected to have at least a comparable RRR of NVF as alendronate, ibandronate, and risedronate in women with higher risk of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Tiotropium in patients with moderate COPD naive to maintenance therapy: a randomised placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of pharmacotherapy with tiotropium HandiHaler 18 µg for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have been previously demonstrated. However, few data exist regarding the treatment of moderate disease (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stage II). AIMS: To determine whether tiotropium improves lung function/patient-reported outcomes in patients with GOLD stage II COPD naive to maintenance therapy. METHODS: A randomised 24-week double-blind placebo-controlled trial of tiotropium 18 µg once daily (via HandiHaler) was performed in maintenance therapy-naive patients with forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio <0.7 and post-bronchodilator FEV1 ≥50 and <80%. RESULTS: A total of 457 patients were randomised (238 tiotropium, 219 placebo; mean age 62 years; FEV1 1.93 l (66% predicted)). Tiotropium was superior to placebo in mean change from baseline in post-dose FEV1 area under the curve from 0 to 3 h (AUC0-3h) at week 24 (primary endpoint): 0.19 vs. -0.03 l (least-squares mean difference 0.23 l, P<0.001). FVC AUC0-3h, trough and peak FEV1 and FVC were significantly improved with tiotropium versus placebo (P<0.001). Compared with placebo, tiotropium provided numerical improvements in physical activity (P=NS). Physician's Global Assessment (health status) improved (P=0.045) with less impairment on the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire (P=0.043) at week 24. The incidence of exacerbations, cough, bronchitis and dyspnoea was lower with tiotropium than placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Tiotropium improved lung function and patient-reported outcomes in maintenance therapy-naive patients with GOLD stage II COPD, suggesting benefits in initiating maintenance therapy early.

Reduction in cardiovascular risk using a proactive multifactorial intervention is consistent among patients residing in Pacific Asian and non-Pacific Asian regions: a CRUCIAL trial subanalysis.

BACKGROUND: Few trials have compared different approaches to cardiovascular disease prevention among Pacific Asian (PA) populations. The Cluster Randomized Usual Care versus Caduet Investigation Assessing Long-term-risk (CRUCIAL) trial demonstrated that a proactive multifactorial intervention (PMI) approach (based on single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin) resulted in a greater reduction in calculated Framingham 10-year coronary heart disease (CHD) risk compared with usual care (UC) among hypertensive patients with additional risk factors. One-third of CRUCIAL patients resided in the PA region. The aim of this subanalysis was to compare two approaches to cardiovascular risk factor management (PMI versus UC) among patients residing in PA and non-PA regions. METHODS: This subanalysis of the CRUCIAL trial compared treatment-related changes in calculated CHD risk among patients residing in PA and non-PA regions. Sensitivity analyses were conducted among men and women and those with and without diabetes. RESULTS: Overall, 448 patients (31.6%) resided in the PA region and 969 patients (68.4%) resided in non-PA regions. The PMI approach was more effective in reducing calculated CHD risk versus UC in both PA (-37.1% versus -3.5%; P<0.001) and non-PA regions (-31.1% versus -4.2%; P<0.001); region interaction P=0.131. PA patients had slightly greater reductions in total cholesterol compared with non-PA patients. PA patients without diabetes had slightly greater reductions in CHD risk compared with non-PA patients. Treatment effects were similar in men and women and those with diabetes. CONCLUSION: The PMI approach was more effective in reducing calculated Framingham 10-year CHD risk compared with UC among men and women with and without diabetes residing in the PA and non-PA region.

Indirect comparison of bazedoxifene vs oral bisphosphonates for the prevention of vertebral fractures in postmenopausal osteoporotic women.

OBJECTIVE: Compare the efficacy of bazedoxifene with oral bisphosphonates for reduction of vertebral fracture risk in postmenopausal osteoporotic (PMO) women and in higher-risk patients based on evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Eight RCTs assessing vertebral fracture risk reduction with oral bisphosphonates (n = 7) or bazedoxifene (n = 1) were identified by a systematic literature review. Individual study results were pooled in a network meta-analysis (NMA) to indirectly compare treatment effects for overall PMO women and a higher-risk subgroup (FRAX ≥ 20%). Three sets of NMA analyses were conducted: aggregate data (AD) from the bisphosphonate RCTs and bazedoxifene RCT for the full population or the FRAX ≥20% subgroup (NMA AD); bisphosphonate AD and bazedoxifene AD from each FRAX subgroup adjusted for baseline risk (NMA AD meta-regression); and bisphosphonate AD and bazedoxifene individual patient data (IPD) adjusted for baseline risk/FRAX (NMA AD/IPD meta-regression). RESULTS: For the overall population, bisphosphonates had lower fracture risks versus bazedoxifene although there is considerable uncertainty in supporting one intervention over another. The relative risk reduction (RRR) for bazedoxifene was -0.23 (95% CrI: -1.11, 0.27) versus ibandronate, -0.17 (-0.76, 0.22) versus alendronate, and -0.06 (-0.62, 0.30) versus risedronate. RESULTS from the meta-regression analyses were similar. For the FRAX ≥20% population, estimated fracture rates with bazedoxifene were lower than with bisphosphonates, but again the uncertainty limits strong interpretation. The RRR for bazedoxifene was 0.51 (-0.31, 0.83) versus ibandronate, 0.53 (-0.18, 0.83) versus alendronate, and 0.57 (-0.07, 0.85) versus risedronate. The meta-regression analyses showed comparable findings. CONCLUSION: The analyses only considered vertebral fractures for oral bisphosphonates versus bazedoxifene, and IPD was available only for bazedoxifene. In light of this, bazedoxifene is comparable to bisphosphonates in the overall PMO population and at least as effective as bisphosphonates for preventing vertebral fractures among higher-risk PMO patients. The findings suggest bazedoxifene performs better in higher-risk PMO than in the overall PMO.

Proactive multifactorial intervention strategy reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease estimated with region-specific risk assessment models in Pacific Asian patients participating in the CRUCIAL trial.

Despite race, ethnic, and regional differences in cardiovascular disease risk, many worldwide hypertension management guidelines recommend the use of the Framingham coronary heart disease (CHD) risk equation to guide treatment decisions. This subanalysis of the recently published CRUCIAL trial compared the treatment-related reductions in calculated CHD and stroke risk among Pacific Asian (PA) patients using a variety of region-specific risk assessment models. As a result, greater reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides were observed in the proactive multifactorial intervention (PMI) arm compared with the usual care arm at Week 52 for PA patients. The relative percentage change in 10-yr CHD risk between baseline and Week 52 in the PMI versus usual care arms was greatest using the NIPPON DATA80 fatal CHD model (LS [least square] mean difference -42.6%), and similar in the SCORE fatal CHD and Framingham total CHD models (LS mean difference -29.4% and -30.8%, respectively). The single-pill based PMI approach is consistently effective in reducing cardiovascular disease risk, evaluated using a variety of risk assessment models. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00407537).

Reduction in cardiovascular risk using proactive multifactorial intervention versus usual care in younger (< 65 years) and older (≥ 65 years) patients in the CRUCIAL trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the reduction in calculated Framingham 10 year coronary heart disease (CHD) risk after 52 weeks' intervention with a proactive multifactorial intervention (PMI) strategy (based on single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin [SPAA]) versus continuing usual care (UC) (based on investigators' best clinical judgment) among younger (<65 years) and older (≥ 65 years) patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Sub-analysis of the Cluster Randomized Usual Care versus Caduet Investigation Assessing Long-term risk (CRUCIAL) trial. Eligible patients had hypertension and ≥ 3 cardiovascular risk factors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Treatment-related reduction in calculated Framingham 10 year CHD risk between baseline and Week 52 in younger and older patients. RESULTS: Nine hundred patients (63.5%) were <65 years (mean age 54.2 years, 57.4% men) and 517 patients (36.5%) were ≥ 65 years (mean age 70.5 years, 42.7% men). Younger patients had lower mean baseline CHD risk versus older patients (17.1% vs. 22.6%). A greater reduction in calculated CHD risk at Week 52 was observed in the PMI versus the UC arm in both younger (-33.2% vs. -2.9%, p < 0.001) and older (-32.7% vs. -5.7%, p < 0.001) patients. Least-squares mean treatment differences (PMI vs. UC) in percentage change from baseline in calculated CHD risk were similar in younger and older patients (-26.3% vs. -25.7%, age interaction p = 0.887). CHD risk reduction was slightly greater among younger men than younger women (-29.3 vs. -23.9, gender interaction p = 0.062). A low proportion of patients discontinued the PMI strategy due to adverse events in both age groups (5.8% vs. 6.1%, respectively). Study limitations included ad-hoc (not pre-specified) sub-group analysis and short duration of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The PMI strategy based on the inclusion of SPAA in the treatment regimen is more effective than UC in reducing calculated CHD risk. This strategy may be considered as the treatment of choice in younger and older hypertensive patients with additional cardiovascular risk factors.

Post hoc analysis of the Cluster Randomized Usual Care versus Caduet Investigation Assessing Long-term risk (CRUCIAL) trial.

OBJECTIVE: A proactive, multifactorial intervention strategy incorporating single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin (SPAA) (5-10/10 mg up-titrated to 5-10/20 mg, where approved) is more effective than physician's usual care (UC) for reducing calculated 10 year coronary heart disease (CHD) risk, in patients with hypertension and additional risk factors (CRUCIAL trial: Curr Med Res Opin 2011;27:821--33). As SPAA combinations containing atorvastatin 20 mg are not approved in some countries, this post hoc analysis investigated the efficacy and safety of a proactive intervention strategy incorporating low-dose SPAA (5/10 or 10/10 mg) only (low-dose PI) versus UC. METHODS: Of 1461 CRUCIAL participants (35-79 years; hypertension and ≥3 additional risk factors; no CHD; total cholesterol ≤6.5 mmol/L), 105 were prescribed SPAA containing 20 mg atorvastatin and excluded. The primary endpoint was difference between treatment arms in Framingham 10 year CHD risk after 52 weeks; secondary assessments included difference in calculated CHD risk at Week 16; SCORE cardiovascular mortality (Week 16 and 52); blood pressure (BP)/lipid parameters; adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Baseline BP (149.2/89.2 vs. 144.3/86.5 mmHg) and calculated CHD risk (19.6% vs. 18.1%) were higher for low-dose PI (n = 655) versus UC (n = 657) patients. Least-squares mean treatment difference (low-dose PI vs. UC) in calculated 10 year CHD risk was -26.8 (95% CI: -31.7, -22.0; p < 0.001) after 52 weeks' follow-up and -24.8 (-29.8, -19.9; p < 0.001) after 16 weeks' follow-up. Treatment difference in SCORE mortality was -20.1 (-24.7, -15.6; p < 0.001) and -22.4 (-26.8, -18.0; p < 0.001) after 16 and 52 weeks' follow-up. Risk calculations are surrogate endpoints and may not translate into actual reductions in cardiovascular events. Overall, 49.1% (low-dose PI) and 44.0% (UC) reported AEs. CONCLUSION: A proactive, multifactorial approach to cardiovascular management based on low-dose SPAA led to statistically significant improvements in calculated 10 year CHD risk versus physician's UC, comparable to that reported in the full CRUCIAL trial. These data will inform healthcare providers in countries where SPAA (5/10 or 10/10 mg) only are licensed.

Changes in calculated coronary heart disease risk using proactive multifactorial intervention versus continued usual care in Latin-American and non-Latin-American patients enrolled in the CRUCIAL trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the change in calculated coronary heart disease (CHD) risk using a proactive multifactorial intervention (PMI) versus usual care (UC), among Latin-American (LA) and non-LA patients enrolled in the CRUCIAL trial. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This is a sub-analysis of the Cluster Randomized Usual Care versus Caduet Investigation Assessing Long-term-risk (CRUCIAL) trial. CRUCIAL was a prospective, multinational, open-label, cluster-randomized trial. Eligible patients had hypertension and ≥3 additional cardiovascular risk factors, but no history of CHD and baseline total cholesterol ≤6.5 mmol/l (250 mg/dl). The PMI strategy was implemented by the inclusion of single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin (SPAA) in the patients' treatment regimen. Overall, 20% of patients resided in the LA region. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Treatment-related change in calculated Framingham 10-year CHD risk between baseline and Week 52 in the LA and non-LA regions. RESULTS: A greater relative reduction in calculated CHD risk after 52 weeks' follow-up was observed for patients in the PMI arm compared with UC arm in both LA (-32.8% vs. -7.5%, p = 0.003) and non-LA regions (-33.1% vs. -3.3%, p < 0.001), region interaction p = 0.316. The proportion of patients discontinuing treatment in the PMI arm due to adverse events (AEs) was low in both regions (both 5.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The PMI approach based on the inclusion of SPAA in the patients' treatment regimen may improve the management of CHD risk among patients residing in LA and non-LA regions. Clinicians may be reassured by the low rate of AEs leading to discontinuation of SPAA in both regions.

Proactive cardiovascular risk management versus usual care in patients with and without diabetes mellitus: CRUCIAL trial subanalysis.

UNLABELLED: Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and additional cardiovascular (CV) risk factors are at very high risk for future CV events. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of a proactive, multifactorial CV risk factor-management strategy based on single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin (SPAA) versus continuing physicians' usual care (UC) over 52 weeks in patients with and without DM. Patients with hypertension and ≥ 3 additional CV risk factors from the Cluster Randomized Usual Care vs Caduet Investigation Assessing Long-Term-Risk (CRUCIAL) trial--an open-label, cluster-randomized trial conducted in 19 countries--were enrolled and randomized to receive proactive intervention (based on SPAA 5/10 to 10/20 mg) or UC (based on investigators' best clinical judgment). Patients were analyzed according to baseline DM status. Six hundred patients had DM. Patients with DM in the SPAA and UC arms had mean ages of 61.8 and 61.5 years, respectively, and an absolute coronary heart disease (CHD) risk of 25.2% and 21.5%, respectively. Among non-DM patients, mean ages were 58.6 and 59.5 years, respectively, and CHD risk was 16.0% vs 15.7%, respectively. Least-squares mean treatment differences in percentage change from baseline in calculated 10-year Framingham CHD risk were -26.3% vs -27.3% among DM and non-DM patients (adjusted for respective baseline values) (both P < 0.0001). Among DM and non-DM patients, adverse events were reported in 52.8% versus 45.6% in the SPAA and 49.6% versus 41.6% in the UC arms, respectively. This global risk-management approach, simultaneously targeting blood pressure and lipids, was more effective for reducing calculated 10-year Framingham CHD risk than UC in patients with DM. While blood pressure changes were of smaller magnitude among patients with DM, this strategy reduced overall risk to an extent comparable with that observed in non-DM patients. Further studies are thus warranted to study this proactive risk factor intervention on CV or mortality endpoints in patients with and without DM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00407537.

Relationship of antihypertensive treatment to plasma markers of vascular inflammation and remodeling in the Comparison of Amlodipine versus Enalapril to Limit Occurrences of Thrombosis study.

BACKGROUND: Antihypertensive agents lower the risk of cardiovascular events, but whether they affect pathways important in inflammation and plaque remodeling in atherosclerosis is uncertain. We assessed whether 2 commonly used antihypertensive agents affected plasma biomarkers reflecting specific inflammatory and remodeling processes over 2 years in the Comparison of Amlodipine versus Enalapril to Limit Occurrences of Thrombosis (CAMELOT) study. METHODS: The study was a randomized controlled trial of 2 antihypertensives (amlodipine and enalapril) compared with placebo in patients with coronary artery disease and diastolic blood pressure less than 100 mm Hg. In 196 subjects who had baseline and 2-year intravascular coronary ultrasound examinations, we measured plasma interleukin 18, interleukin 1 receptor antagonist, matrix metalloproteinase 9, neopterin, and C-reactive protein. Results for both treatment groups were pooled and compared with placebo. RESULTS: Antihypertensive treatment with either agent significantly lowered diastolic blood pressure (-4.7 vs placebo 1.3 mm Hg, P = .002) and progression of coronary atheroma (Δ percent atheroma volume 0.6 vs placebo 2.1, P = .031). Antihypertensive therapy did not affect plasma biomarkers of inflammation or plaque remodeling in the 135 subjects with baseline and 2-year biomarker samples. Progression in percent atheroma volume was significantly less in subjects taking statins at baseline (-2.5%, P = .0008). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with coronary artery disease and well-controlled risk factors, antihypertensive therapy lowered blood pressure and progression of coronary atherosclerosis but did not affect plasma biomarkers of inflammation and remodeling. Antihypertensives may decrease atheroma progression by mechanisms other than those reflected by these plasma biomarkers.

Proactive multiple cardiovascular risk factor management compared with usual care in patients with hypertension and additional risk factors: the CRUCIAL trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether a proactive multifactorial risk factor intervention strategy using single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin (5/10, 10/10 mg) in addition to other antihypertensive and lipid-lowering therapy, as required, resulted in greater reduction in calculated Framingham 10-year coronary heart disease (CHD) risk compared with usual care (UC) after 52-weeks treatment. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Prospective, multinational, open-label, cluster randomized trial, with the investigator as the unit of randomization. Eligible hypertensive patients were 35-79 years of age, with ≥3 additional cardiovascular risk factors, but no history of CHD and baseline total cholesterol (TC) ≤6.5 mmol/l. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.ClinicalTrials.gov ; trial identifier NCT00407537. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary endpoint was calculated Framingham 10-year CHD risk at 52 weeks. RESULTS: Of the 140 randomized sites, 136 sites contributed 1461 patients. Mean baseline age and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) were comparable between treatment arms. Mean baseline BP (150.3/89.7 vs. 144.3/86.5 mmHg) and Framingham CHD risk (20.0 vs. 18.1%) were higher in the proactive intervention versus the UC arm (p < 0.002 for both). At week 52, mean CHD risk was 12.5% in the proactive intervention arm and 16.3% in the UC arm (p < 0.001). The difference, observed at weeks 16 and 52, was primarily driven by significant differences in systolic BP and in TC between the two arms. Overall, adverse events (AEs) were reported in 48.8% and 44.0% of patients in the proactive intervention and the UC arm, respectively. Although there were differences in the incidence of AEs between the treatment arms, the AE profile in the proactive intervention arm was consistent with previous safety experience for this medication. CONCLUSIONS: A proactive multifactorial risk factor intervention strategy that simultaneously treated both BP and cholesterol regardless of individual risk factors per se, is more effective in reducing calculated Framingham 10-year CHD risk than UC in patients with hypertension and additional risk factors.