The LDL cumulative exposure hypothesis: evidence and practical applications.

The trapping of LDL and other apolipoprotein B-containing lipoproteins within the artery wall causes atherosclerosis. As more LDL becomes trapped within the artery wall over time, the atherosclerotic plaque burden gradually increases, raising the risk of an acute cardiovascular event. Therefore, the biological effect of LDL on the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) depends on both the magnitude and duration of exposure. Maintaining low levels of LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) over time decreases the number of LDL particles trapped within the artery wall, slows the progression of atherosclerosis and, by delaying the age at which mature atherosclerotic plaques develop, substantially reduces the lifetime risk of ASCVD events. Summing LDL-C measurements over time to calculate cumulative exposure to LDL generates a unique biomarker that captures both the magnitude and duration of exposure, which facilitates the estimation of the absolute risk of having an acute cardiovascular event at any point in time. Titrating LDL-C lowering to keep cumulative exposure to LDL below the threshold at which acute cardiovascular events occur can effectively prevent ASCVD. In this Review, we provide the first comprehensive overview of how the LDL cumulative exposure hypothesis can guide the prevention of ASCVD. We also discuss the benefits of maintaining lower LDL-C levels over time and how this knowledge can be used to inform clinical practice guidelines as well as to design novel primary prevention trials and ASCVD prevention programmes.

Dose Reduction of Edoxaban in Patients 80 Years and Older With Atrial Fibrillation: Post Hoc Analysis of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In older patients with atrial fibrillation who take anticoagulants for stroke prevention, bleeding is increased compared with younger patients, thus, clinicians frequently prescribe lower than recommended doses in older patients despite limited randomized data. Objective: To evaluate ischemic and bleeding outcomes in patients 80 years and older with atrial fibrillation receiving edoxaban, 60 mg vs 30 mg, and edoxaban, 30 mg vs warfarin. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial (Effective Anticoagulation With Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48) was a parallel-design, double-blind, global clinical trial that randomized patients with atrial fibrillation to either one of 2 edoxaban dosing regimens or warfarin. This secondary analysis focused on patients 80 years or older without dose-reduction criteria receiving edoxaban, 60 mg vs 30 mg, as well as patients with or without dose-reduction criteria receiving edoxaban, 30 mg, vs warfarin. Study data were analyzed between October 2022 and December 2023. Interventions: Oral edoxaban, 30 mg once daily; edoxaban, 60 mg once daily; or warfarin. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary net clinical outcome of death, stroke or systemic embolism, and major bleeding and each individual component. Results: The current analysis included 2966 patients 80 years and older (mean [SD] age, 83 [2.7] years; 1671 male [56%]). Among 1138 patients 80 years and older without dose-reduction criteria, those receiving edoxaban, 60 mg vs 30 mg, had more major bleeding events (hazard ratio [HR], 1.57; 95% CI, 1.04-2.38; P = .03), particularly gastrointestinal hemorrhage (HR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.29-3.90; P = .004), with no significant difference in efficacy end points. Findings were supported by analyses of endogenous factor Xa inhibition, a marker of anticoagulant effect, which was comparable between younger patients receiving edoxaban, 60 mg, and older patients receiving edoxaban, 30 mg. In 2406 patients 80 years and older with or without dose-reduction criteria, patients receiving edoxaban, 30 mg, vs warfarin had lower rates of the primary net clinical outcome (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.68-0.91; P = .001), major bleeding (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45-0.77; P < .001), and death (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-1.00; P = .046), whereas rates of stroke or systemic embolism were comparable. Conclusions and Relevance: In this post hoc analysis of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 randomized clinical trial, in patients 80 years and older with atrial fibrillation, major bleeding events were lower in patients randomized to receive edoxaban, 30 mg per day, compared with either edoxaban, 60 mg per day (in patients without dose-reduction criteria), or warfarin (irrespective of dose-reduction status), without an offsetting increase in ischemic events. These data support the concept that lower-dose anticoagulants, such as edoxaban, 30 mg, may be considered in older patients with atrial fibrillation even in the absence of dose-reduction criteria. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00781391.

Two cardiac myosin inhibitors in the treatment of obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

A key area of therapeutic progress in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy revolves around the emergence of cardiac myosin inhibitors, of which mavacamten and aficamten represent the first and second molecules. We summarize the key research evidence, including many similarities and potential differences between various clinical trials studying these molecules.

Application of the Win Ratio Method in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 Trial Comparing Edoxaban With Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular trials often use a composite end point and a time-to-first event model. We sought to compare edoxaban versus warfarin using the win ratio, which offers data complementary to time-to-first event analysis, emphasizing the most severe clinical events. METHODS: ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 (Effective Anticoagulation With Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48) was a double-blind, randomized trial in which patients with atrial fibrillation were assigned 1:1:1 to a higher dose edoxaban regimen (60/30 mg daily), a lower dose edoxaban regimen (30/15 mg daily), or warfarin. In an exploratory analysis, we analyzed the trial outcomes using an unmatched win ratio approach. The win ratio for each edoxaban regimen was the total number of edoxaban wins divided by the number of warfarin wins for the following ranked clinical outcomes: 1: death; 2: hemorrhagic stroke; 3: ischemic stroke/systemic embolic event/epidural or subdural bleeding; 4: noncerebral International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis major bleeding; and 5: cardiovascular hospitalization. RESULTS: 21 105 patients were randomized to higher dose edoxaban regimen (N=7035), lower dose edoxaban regimen (N=7034), or warfarin (N=7046), yielding >49 million pairs for each treatment comparison. The median age was 72 years, 38% were women, and 59% had prior vitamin K antagonist use. The win ratio was 1.11 (95% CI, 1.05-1.18) for higher dose edoxaban regimen versus warfarin and 1.11 (95% CI, 1.05-1.18) for lower dose edoxaban regimen versus warfarin. The favorable impacts of edoxaban on death (34% of wins) and cardiovascular hospitalization (41% of wins) were the major contributors to the win ratio. Results consistently favored edoxaban in subgroups based on creatine clearance and dose reduction at baseline, with heightened benefit among those without prior vitamin K antagonist use. CONCLUSIONS: In a win ratio analysis of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial, both dose regimens of edoxaban were superior to warfarin for the net clinical outcome incorporating ischemic and bleeding events. As the win ratio emphasizes the most severe clinical events, this analysis supports the superiority of edoxaban over warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00781391.

Association of Sacubitril/Valsartan vs Valsartan With Blood Pressure Changes and Symptomatic Hypotension: the PARAGLIDE-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: In PARAGLIDE-HF, in patients with ejection fraction (EF) > 40%, stabilized after worsening heart failure (WHF), sacubitril/valsartan led to greater reduction in plasma NT-proBNP levels and was associated with clinical benefit compared to valsartan alone, despite more symptomatic hypotension (SH). Concern about SH may be limiting the use of sacubitril/valsartan in appropriate patients. METHODS: We characterized patients by the occurrence of SH (investigator-reported) after randomization to either sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. A key trial inclusion criterion was systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 100 mmHg for the preceding 6 hours and no SH. We also compared outcomes based on baseline SBP stratified by the median blood pressure. The primary endpoint was time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP levels from baseline through weeks 4 and 8. A secondary hierarchical outcome (win ratio) consisted of: (1) cardiovascular death; (2) hospitalizations due to HF; (3) urgent HF visits; and (4) change in NT-proBNP levels. RESULTS: Among 466 randomized patients, 92 (19.7%) experienced SH (sacubitril/valsartan, n = 56 [24.0%]; valsartan, n = 36 [15.5%]; P = 0.020). The median time to the first SH event was similar between treatment arms (18 days vs 15 days, respectively; P = 0.42) as was the proportion of first SH events classified as serious by investigators. Patients who experienced SH with sacubitril/valsartan were more likely to be white (OR 1.87 [95% CI: 0.31, 11.15]), to have a lower baseline SBP (per 10 mmHg increase, OR 0.68 [95% CI: 0.55, 0.85]), or to have a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of > 60% (OR 2.21 [95% CI: 1.05, 4.65]). Time-averaged change in NT-proBNP levels did not differ between patients with baseline SBP ≥ 128 mmHg vs SBP < 128 mmHg (interaction, P = 0.43). The composite hierarchical outcome for sacubitril/valsartan in patients with baseline SBP ≥ 128 mmHg had a win ratio of 1.34 ([95% CI: 0.91, 1.99]; P = 0.096) vs SBP < 128 mmHg with a win ratio of 1.09 ([95%CI: 0.73, 1.66]; P = 0 .62; interaction P value = 0.42). CONCLUSION: Among patients with LVEF > 40% stabilized after WHF, incident SH was more common with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan. SH was associated with lower baseline SBP, being white, and having higher LVEF. Treatment benefits with sacubitril/valsartan may be more pronounced in patients with higher baseline SBP and lower LVEF (≤ 60%). (Funded by Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03988634.).

Fibrinolytic Agents in Thromboembolic Diseases: Historical Perspectives and Approved Indications.

Fibrinolytic agents catalyze the conversion of the inactive proenzyme plasminogen into the active protease plasmin, degrading fibrin within the thrombus and recanalizing occluded vessels. The history of these medications dates to the discovery of the first fibrinolytic compound, streptokinase, from bacterial cultures in 1933. Over time, researchers identified two other plasminogen activators in human samples, namely urokinase and tissue plasminogen activator (tPA). Subsequently, tPA was cloned using recombinant DNA methods to produce alteplase. Several additional derivatives of tPA, such as tenecteplase and reteplase, were developed to extend the plasma half-life of tPA. Over the past decades, fibrinolytic medications have been widely used to manage patients with venous and arterial thromboembolic events. Currently, alteplase is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in patients with pulmonary embolism with hemodynamic compromise, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), acute ischemic stroke, and central venous access device occlusion. Reteplase and tenecteplase have also received FDA approval for treating patients with STEMI. This review provides an overview of the historical background related to fibrinolytic agents and briefly summarizes their approved indications across various thromboembolic diseases.

Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients Hospitalized With Decompensated Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) has not been described. OBJECTIVES: Data from randomized trials of sacubitril/valsartan in HF patients with EF ≤40% (PIONEER-HF [Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect of NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode] trial) and >40% (PARAGLIDE-HF [Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF] trial) following recent worsening heart failure (WHF) were pooled to examine treatment effect across the EF spectrum. METHODS: The PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF trials were double-blind, randomized trials of sacubitril/valsartan vs control therapy (enalapril or valsartan, respectively). All participants in the PIONEER-HF trial and 69.5% in the PARAGLIDE-HF trial were enrolled during hospitalization for HF after stabilization. The remainder in the PARAGLIDE-HF trial were enrolled ≤30 days after a WHF event. The primary endpoint of both trials was time-averaged proportional change in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline through weeks 4 and 8. Adjudicated clinical endpoints were analyzed through the end of follow-up, adjusting for trial. RESULTS: The pooled analysis included 1,347 patients (881 from PIONEER-HF, 466 from PARAGLIDE-HF). Baseline characteristics included median age 66 years, 36% women, 31% Black, 34% de novo HF, and median EF 30%. The reduction in NT-proBNP was 24% greater with sacubitril/valsartan vs control therapy (n = 1,130; ratio of change = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.69-0.83; P < 0.0001). Cardiovascular death or hospitalization for HF was reduced by 30% with sacubitril/valsartan vs control therapy (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.54-0.91; P = 0.0077). This effect was consistent across the spectrum of EF ≤60%. Sacubitril/valsartan increased symptomatic hypotension (risk ratio: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.05-1.72). CONCLUSIONS: In patients stabilized after WHF, sacubitril/valsartan led to a greater reduction in plasma NT-proBNP and improved clinical outcome compared with control therapy, in particular across the spectrum of EF ≤60%. (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect of NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode [PIONEER-HF]; NCT02554890; Changes in NT-proBNP, Safety, and Tolerability in HFpEF Patients With a WHF Event [HFpEF Decompensation] Who Have Been Stabilized and Initiated at the Time of or Within 30 Days Post-decompensation [PARAGLIDE-HF]; NCT03988634).

Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Brief Overview.

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a complex, heterogeneous disorder that affects approximately 1 in every 500 persons worldwide and about 750,000 Americans. It is characterized by left ventricular hypertrophy that is usually asymmetric, with enlarged myocytes in disarray, unexplained by loading conditions. Obstruction to left ventricular outflow occurs in approximately 60% of patients. The natural history and cardiac morphology of HCM are quite heterogeneous. Although most patients with HCM are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic, a minority are disabled by dyspnea, angina, or syncope, develop advanced heart failure, or die suddenly.

Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibition in Patients With STEMI vs NSTEMI.

BACKGROUND: Patients who sustain an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), including ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), remain at high risk for heart failure (HF), coronary events, and death. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors have been shown to significantly decrease the risk for cardiovascular events in both STEMI and NSTEMI patients. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to determine whether angiotensin-receptor blockade and neprilysin inhibition with sacubitril/valsartan, compared with ramipril, has impact on reducing cardiovascular events according to the type of AMI. METHODS: The PARADISE-MI (Prospective ARNI versus ACE inhibitor trial to DetermIne Superiority in reducing heart failure Events after Myocardial Infarction) trial enrolled patients with AMI complicated by left ventricular dysfunction and/or pulmonary congestion and at least 1 risk-enhancing factor. Patients were randomized to either sacubitril/valsartan or ramipril. The primary endpoint was death from cardiovascular causes or incident HF. In this prespecified analysis, we stratified patients according to AMI type. RESULTS: Of 5,661 enrolled patients, 4,291 (75.8%) had STEMI. These patients were younger and had fewer comorbidities and cardiovascular risk factors than NSTEMI patients. After adjustment for potential confounders, the risk for the primary outcome was marginally higher in NSTEMI vs STEMI patients (adjusted HR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.00-1.41), with borderline statistical significance (P = 0.05). The primary composite outcome occurred at similar rates in patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan vs ramipril in STEMI (10% vs 12%; HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.73-1.04; P = 0.13) and NSTEMI patients (17% vs 17%; HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.75-1.25; P = 0.80; P interaction = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with ramipril, sacubitril/valsartan did not significantly decrease the risk for cardiovascular death and HF in patients with AMI complicated by left ventricular dysfunction, irrespective of the type of AMI. (Prospective ARNI vs ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI; NCT02924727).

Long-term cardiovascular risks and the impact of statin treatment on socioeconomic inequalities: a microsimulation model.

BACKGROUND: UK cardiovascular disease (CVD) incidence and mortality have declined in recent decades but socioeconomic inequalities persist. AIM: To present a new CVD model, and project health outcomes and the impact of guideline-recommended statin treatment across quintiles of socioeconomic deprivation in the UK. DESIGN AND SETTING: A lifetime microsimulation model was developed using 117 896 participants in 16 statin trials, 501 854 UK Biobank (UKB) participants, and quality-of-life data from national health surveys. METHOD: A CVD microsimulation model was developed using risk equations for myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularisation, cancer, and vascular and non-vascular death, estimated using trial data. The authors calibrated and further developed this model in the UKB cohort, including further characteristics and a diabetes risk equation, and validated the model in UKB and Whitehall II cohorts. The model was used to predict CVD incidence, life expectancy, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the impact of UK guideline-recommended statin treatment across socioeconomic deprivation quintiles. RESULTS: Age, sex, socioeconomic deprivation, smoking, hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular events were key CVD risk determinants. Model-predicted event rates corresponded well to observed rates across participant categories. The model projected strong gradients in remaining life expectancy, with 4-5-year (5-8 QALYs) gaps between the least and most socioeconomically deprived quintiles. Guideline-recommended statin treatment was projected to increase QALYs, with larger gains in quintiles of higher deprivation. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated the potential of guideline-recommended statin treatment to reduce socioeconomic inequalities. This CVD model is a novel resource for individualised long-term projections of health outcomes of CVD treatments.

Lipoprotein(a), C-Reactive Protein, and Cardiovascular Risk in Primary and Secondary Prevention Populations.

Importance: Elevated lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is a putative causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). There are conflicting data as to whether Lp(a) may increase cardiovascular risk only in the presence of concomitant inflammation. Objective: To investigate whether Lp(a) is associated with cardiovascular risk independent of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) in both primary and secondary prevention populations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study uses data from 3 distinct cohorts, 1 population-based cohort and 2 randomized clinical trials. Participants included individuals from the UK Biobank (data from 2006-2010) without prevalent ASCVD, participants in the FOURIER (TIMI 59) trial (data from 2013-2017) who had baseline Lp(a) and hs-CRP data, and participants in the SAVOR-TIMI 53 trial (data from 2010-2013) who had prevalent ASCVD and baseline values for Lp(a) and hs-CRP. The data analysis took place from November 2022 to November 2023. Exposure: Baseline plasma Lp(a), considered either as a continuous variable or dichotomized at 125 nmol/L. Main Outcomes and Measures: Risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemic stroke), the individual MACE components, and peripheral artery disease (PAD). Results: Among 357 220 individuals in the UK Biobank without prevalent ASCVD, 232 699 (65%) had low hs-CRP (<2 mg/L), and 124 521 (35%) had high hs-CRP (≥2 mg/L) values. In a Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for ASCVD risk factors, higher Lp(a) was associated with increased cardiovascular risk regardless of baseline hs-CRP value for MACE (hs-CRP ≥2 mg/L: hazard ratio [HR] per 50-nmol/L higher Lp[a], 1.05; 95% CI, 1.04-1.07; P < .001; for hs-CRP <2 mg/L: HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.04-1.07; P < .001; P = .80 for interaction), as well as MI, ischemic stroke, and PAD individually. Among 34 020 individuals in the FOURIER and SAVOR trials with baseline cardiometabolic disease, there were 17 643 (52%) with low and 16 377 (48%) with high baseline hs-CRP values. In Cox proportional hazard models using aggregated data from FOURIER and SAVOR, higher baseline Lp(a) was associated with increased cardiovascular risk regardless of baseline hs-CRP for MACE (hs-CRP ≥2 mg/L: HR per 50-nmol/L higher Lp[a], 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.05; P = .04; hs-CRP <2 mg/L: HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08; P < .001; P = .16 for interaction), MI, and PAD. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, higher levels of Lp(a) were associated with MACE, MI, and PAD in both primary and secondary prevention populations regardless of baseline hs-CRP value.

Novel Polygenic Risk Score and Established Clinical Risk Factors for Risk Estimation of Aortic Stenosis.

Importance: Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have proven to be as strong as or stronger than established clinical risk factors for many cardiovascular phenotypes. Whether this is true for aortic stenosis remains unknown. Objective: To develop a novel aortic stenosis PRS and compare its aortic stenosis risk estimation to established clinical risk factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a longitudinal cohort study using data from the Million Veteran Program (MVP; 2011-2020), UK Biobank (2006-2010), and 6 Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) trials, including DECLARE-TIMI 58 (2013-2018), FOURIER (TIMI 59; 2013-2017), PEGASUS-TIMI 54 (2010-2014), SAVOR-TIMI 53 (2010-2013), SOLID-TIMI 52 (2009-2014), and ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 (2008-2013), which were a mix of population-based and randomized clinical trials. Individuals from UK Biobank and the MVP meeting a previously validated case/control definition for aortic stenosis were included. All individuals from TIMI trials were included unless they had a documented preexisting aortic valve replacement. Analysis took place from January 2022 to December 2023. Exposures: PRS for aortic stenosis (developed using data from MVP and validated in UK Biobank) and other previously validated cardiovascular PRSs, defined either as a continuous variable or as low (bottom 20%), intermediate, and high (top 20%), and clinical risk factors. Main Outcomes: Aortic stenosis (defined using International Classification of Diseases or Current Procedural Terminology codes in UK Biobank and MVP or safety event data in the TIMI trials). Results: The median (IQR) age in MVP was 67 (57-73) years, and 135 140 of 147 104 participants (92%) were male. The median (IQR) age in the TIMI trials was 66 (54-78) years, and 45 524 of 59 866 participants (71%) were male. The best aortic stenosis PRS incorporated 5 170 041 single-nucleotide variants and was associated with aortic stenosis in both the MVP testing sample (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.37-1.45 per 1 SD PRS; P = 4.6 × 10-116) and TIMI trials (hazard ratio, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.27-1.62 per 1 SD PRS; P = 3.2 × 10-9). Among genetic and clinical risk factors, the aortic stenosis PRS performed comparably to most risk factors besides age, and within a given age range, the combination of clinical and genetic risk factors was additive, providing a 3- to 4-fold increased gradient of risk of aortic stenosis. However, the addition of the aortic stenosis PRS to a model including clinical risk factors only improved risk discrimination of aortic stenosis by 0.01 to 0.02 (C index in MVP: 0.78 with clinical risk factors, 0.79 with risk factors and aortic stenosis PRS; C index in TIMI: 0.71 with clinical risk factors, 0.73 with risk factors and aortic stenosis PRS). Conclusions: This study developed and validated 1 of the first aortic stenosis PRSs. While aortic stenosis genetic risk was independent from clinical risk factors and performed comparably to all other risk factors besides age, genetic risk resulted in only a small improvement in overall aortic stenosis risk discrimination beyond age and clinical risk factors. This work sets the stage for further development of an aortic stenosis PRS.

Efficacy and Safety of Non-Vitamin-K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin Across the Spectrum of Body Mass Index and Body Weight: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of 4 Randomized Clinical Trials of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of non-vitamin-K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) across the spectrum of body mass index (BMI) and body weight (BW) remain uncertain. METHODS: We analyzed data from COMBINE AF (A Collaboration Between Multiple Institutions to Better Investigate Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Use in Atrial Fibrillation), which pooled patient-level data from the 4 pivotal randomized trials of NOAC versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were stroke or systemic embolic events (stroke/SEE) and major bleeding, respectively; secondary outcomes were ischemic stroke/SEE, intracranial hemorrhage, death, and the net clinical outcome (stroke/SEE, major bleeding, or death). Each outcome was examined across BMI and BW. Because few patients had a BMI <18.5 kg/m2 (n=598), the primary analyses were restricted to those with a BMI ≥18.5 kg/m2. RESULTS: Among 58 464 patients, the median BMI was 28.3 (interquartile range, 25.2-32.2) kg/m2, and the median BW was 81.0 (interquartile range, 70.0-94.3) kg. The event probability of stroke/SEE was lower at a higher BMI irrespective of treatment, whereas the probability of major bleeding was lower at a higher BMI with warfarin but relatively unchanged across BMI with NOACs. NOACs reduced stroke/SEE overall (adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.73-0.88]; P<0.001), with a generally consistent effect across BMI (Ptrend across HRs, 0.48). NOACs also reduced major bleeding overall (HRadj, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.82-0.94]; P<0.001), but with attenuation of the benefit at a higher BMI (trend test across BMI [Ptrend], 0.003). The overall treatment effects of NOACs versus warfarin for secondary outcomes were consistent across BMI, with the exception of the net clinical outcome and death. While these outcomes were overall reduced with NOACs (net clinical outcome, HRadj, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.87-0.95]; P<0.001; death, HRadj, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.86-0.97]; P=0.003), these benefits were attenuated at higher BMI (Ptrend, 0.001 and 0.08, respectively). All findings were qualitatively similar when analyzed across BW. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment effect of NOACs versus warfarin in atrial fibrillation is generally consistent for stroke/SEE across the spectrum of BMI and BW, whereas the reduction in major bleeding is attenuated in those with higher BMI or BW. Death and the net clinical outcome are overall reduced with NOACs over warfarin, although there remain uncertainties for these outcomes at a very high BMI and BW.

Sacubitril/valsartan compared to ramipril in high-risk post-myocardial infarction patients stratified according to use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists: Insight from the PARADISE MI trial.

AIM: It is unknown whether safety and clinical endpoints by use of sacubitril/valsartan (an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor [ARNI]) are affected by mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) in high-risk myocardial infarction (MI) patients. The aim of this study was to examine whether MRA modifies safety and clinical endpoints by use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with a MI and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and/or pulmonary congestion. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients (n = 5661) included in the PARADISE MI trial (Prospective ARNI vs. ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI) were stratified according to MRA. Primary outcomes in this substudy were worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death. Safety was defined as symptomatic hypotension, hyperkalaemia >5.5 mmol/L, or permanent drug discontinuation. A total of 2338 patients (41%) were treated with MRA. Safety of ARNI compared to ramipril was not altered significantly by ± MRA, and both groups had similar increase in symptomatic hypotension with ARNI. In patients taking MRA, the risk of hyperkalaemia or permanent drug discontinuation was not significantly altered by ARNI (p > 0.05 for all comparisons). The effect of ARNI compared with ramipril was similar in those who were and were not taking MRA (hazard ratio [HR]MRA 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-1.19 and HRMRA- 0.87, 95% CI 0.71-1.05, for the primary endpoint; p = 0.51 for interaction [Clinical Endpoint Committee adjudicated]); similar findings were observed if investigator-reported endpoints were evaluated (p = 0.61 for interaction). CONCLUSIONS: Use of a MRA did not modify safety or clinical endpoints related to initiation of ARNI compared to ramipril in the post-MI setting in patients with LVSD and/or congestion.

Natriuretic peptides, body mass index and heart failure risk: Pooled analyses of SAVOR-TIMI 53, DECLARE-TIMI 58 and CAMELLIA-TIMI 61.

AIM: N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations are lower in patients with obesity. The interaction between body mass index (BMI) and NT-proBNP with respect to heart failure risk remains incompletely defined. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data were pooled across three randomized clinical trials enrolling predominantly patients who were overweight or obese with established cardiometabolic disease: SAVOR-TIMI 53, DECLARE-TIMI 58 and CAMELLIA-TIMI 61. Hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) was examined across strata of baseline BMI and NT-proBNP. The effect of dapagliflozin versus placebo was assessed for a treatment interaction across BMI categories in patients with or without an elevated baseline NT-proBNP (≥125 pg/ml). Among 24 455 patients, the median NT-proBNP was 96 (interquartile range [IQR]: 43-225) pg/ml and the median BMI was 33 (IQR 29-37) kg/m2, with 68% of patients having a BMI ≥30 kg/m2. There was a significant inverse association between NT-proBNP and BMI which persisted after adjustment for all clinical variables (p < 0.001). Within any range of NT-proBNP, those at higher BMI had higher risk of HHF at 2 years (comparing BMI <30 vs. ≥40 kg/m2 for NT-proBNP ranges of <125, 125-<450 and ≥450 pg/ml: 0.0% vs. 0.6%, 1.3% vs. 4.0%, and 8.1% vs. 13.8%, respectively), which persisted after multivariable adjustment (adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj] 7.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.16-17.66, HRadj 3.22 [95% CI 2.13-4.86], and HRadj 1.87 [95% CI 1.35-2.60], respectively). In DECLARE-TIMI 58, dapagliflozin versus placebo consistently reduced HHF across BMI categories in those with an elevated NT-proBNP (p-trend for HR across BMI = 0.60), with a pattern of greater absolute risk reduction (ARR) at higher BMI (ARR for BMI <30 to ≥40 kg/m2: 2.2% to 4.7%; p-trend = 0.059). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of HHF varies across BMI categories for any given range of circulating NT-proBNP. These findings showcase the importance of considering BMI when applying NT-proBNP for heart failure risk stratification, particularly for patients with low-level elevations in NT-proBNP (125-<450 pg/ml) where there appears to be a clinically meaningful absolute and relative risk gradient.