Personalizing cardiovascular risk prediction for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.

OBJECTIVE: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk is increased in SLE and underestimated by general population prediction algorithms. We aimed to develop a novel SLE-specific prediction tool, SLECRISK, to provide a more accurate estimate of CVD risk in SLE. METHODS: We studied patients in the Brigham and Women's Hospital SLE cohort. We collected one-year baseline data including the presence of traditional CVD factors and SLE-related features at cohort enrollment. Ten-year follow-up for the first major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or cardiac death) began at day +1 following the baseline period (index date). ICD-9/10 codes identified MACE were adjudicated by board-certified cardiologists. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression selected SLE-related variables to add to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Pooled Cohort Risk Equations 10-year risk Cox regression model. Model fit statistics and performance (sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive value, c-statistic) for predicting moderate/high 10-year risk (≥7.5 %) of MACE were assessed and compared to ACC/AHA, Framingham risk score (FRS), and modified FRS (mFRS). Optimism adjustment internal validation was performed using bootstrapping. RESULTS: We included 1,243 patients with 90 MACEs (46 MIs, 36 strokes, 19 cardiac deaths) over 8946.5 person-years of follow-up. SLE variables selected for the new prediction algorithm (SLECRISK) were SLE activity (remission/mild vs. moderate/severe), disease duration (years), creatinine (mg/dL), anti-dsDNA, anti-RNP, lupus anticoagulant, anti-Ro positivity, and low C4. The sensitivity for detecting moderate/high-risk (≥7.5 %) of MACE using SLECRISK was 0.74 (95 %CI: 0.65, 0.83), which was better than the sensitivity of the ACC/AHA model (0.38 (95 %CI: 0.28, 0.48)). It also identified 3.4-fold more moderate/high-risk patients than the ACC/AHA. Patients who were moderate/high-risk according to SLECRISK but not ACC/AHA, were more likely to be young women with severe SLE and few other traditional CVD risk factors. Model performance between SLECRISK, FRS, and mFRS were similar. CONCLUSION: The novel SLECRISK tool is more sensitive than the ACC/AHA for predicting moderate/high 10-year risk for MACE and may be particularly useful in predicting risk for young females with severe SLE. Future external validation studies utilizing cohorts with more severe SLE are needed.

Effectiveness and safety of empagliflozin: final results from the EMPRISE study.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Limited evidence exists on the comparative safety and effectiveness of empagliflozin against alternative glucose-lowering medications in individuals with type 2 diabetes with the broad spectrum of cardiovascular risk. The EMPagliflozin compaRative effectIveness and SafEty (EMPRISE) cohort study was designed to monitor the safety and effectiveness of empagliflozin periodically for a period of 5 years with data collection from electronic healthcare databases. METHODS: We identified individuals ≥18 years old with type 2 diabetes who initiated empagliflozin or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) from 2014 to 2019 using US Medicare and commercial claims databases. After 1:1 propensity score matching using 143 baseline characteristics, we identified four a priori-defined effectiveness outcomes: (1) myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke; (2) hospitalisation for heart failure (HHF); (3) major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE); and (4) cardiovascular mortality or HHF. Safety outcomes included lower-limb amputations, non-vertebral fractures, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), acute kidney injury (AKI), severe hypoglycaemia, retinopathy progression, and short-term kidney and bladder cancers. We estimated HRs and rate differences (RDs) per 1000 person-years, overall and stratified by age, sex, baseline atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and heart failure. RESULTS: We identified 115,116 matched pairs. Compared with DPP-4i, empagliflozin was associated with lower risks of MI/stroke (HR 0.88 [95% CI 0.81, 0.96]; RD -2.08 [95% CI (-3.26, -0.90]), HHF (HR 0.50 [0.44, 0.56]; RD -5.35 [-6.22, -4.49]), MACE (HR 0.73 [0.62, 0.86]; RD -6.37 [-8.98, -3.77]) and cardiovascular mortality/HHF (HR 0.57 [0.47, 0.69]; RD -10.36 [-12.63, -8.12]). Absolute benefits were larger in older individuals and in those with ASCVD/heart failure. Empagliflozin was associated with an increased risk of DKA (HR 1.78 [1.44, 2.19]; RD 1.59 [1.08, 2.09]); decreased risks of AKI (HR 0.62 [0.54, 0.72]; RD -2.39 [-3.08, -1.71]), hypoglycaemia (HR 0.75 [0.67, 0.84]; RD -2.46 [-3.32, -1.60]) and retinopathy progression (HR 0.78 [0.63, 0.96)]; RD -9.49 [-16.97, -2.10]); and similar risks of other safety events. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Empagliflozin relative to DPP-4i was associated with risk reductions of MI or stroke, HHF, MACE and the composite of cardiovascular mortality or HHF. Absolute risk reductions were larger in older individuals and in those who had history of ASCVD or heart failure. Regarding the safety outcomes, empagliflozin was associated with an increased risk of DKA and lower risks of AKI, hypoglycaemia and progression to proliferative retinopathy, with no difference in the short-term risks of lower-extremity amputation, non-vertebral fractures, kidney and renal pelvis cancer, and bladder cancer.

Cardiovascular Outcomes in GRADE (Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Type 2 Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study).

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes. The effects of glucose-lowering medications on cardiovascular outcomes in individuals with type 2 diabetes and low cardiovascular risk are unclear. We investigated cardiovascular outcomes by treatment group in participants randomly assigned to insulin glargine, glimepiride, liraglutide, or sitagliptin, added to baseline metformin, in GRADE (Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Type 2 Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study). METHODS: A total of 5047 participants with a mean±SD age of 57.2±10.0 years, type 2 diabetes duration of 4.0±2.7 years, and low baseline prevalence of cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, 5.1%; cerebrovascular accident, 2.0%) were followed for a median of 5 years. Prespecified outcomes included between-group time-to-first event analyses of MACE-3 (composite of major adverse cardiovascular events: cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke), MACE-4 (MACE-3+unstable angina requiring hospitalization or revascularization), MACE-5 (MACE-4+coronary revascularization), MACE-6 (MACE-5+hospitalization for heart failure), and the individual components. MACE outcomes and hospitalization for heart failure in the liraglutide-treated group were compared with the other groups combined using Cox proportional hazards models. MACE-6 was also analyzed as recurrent events using a proportional rate model to compare all treatment groups. RESULTS: We observed no statistically significant differences in the cumulative incidence of first MACE-3, MACE-4, MACE-5, or MACE-6, or their individual components, by randomized treatment group. However, when compared with the other treatment groups combined, the liraglutide-treated group had a significantly lower risk of MACE-5 (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.54-0.91]; P=0.021), MACE-6 (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.55-0.90]; P=0.021), and hospitalization for heart failure (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.28-0.86]; P=0.022). Compared with the liraglutide group, significantly higher rates of recurrent MACE-6 events occurred in the groups treated with glimepiride (rate ratio, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.13-2.29]) or sitagliptin (rate ratio 1.75; [95% CI, 1.24-2.48]). CONCLUSIONS: This comparative effectiveness study of a contemporary cohort of adults with type 2 diabetes, largely without established cardiovascular disease, suggests that liraglutide treatment may reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients at relatively low risk compared with other commonly used glucose-lowering medications. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01794143.

Cardiorenal effectiveness of empagliflozin vs. glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: final-year results from the EMPRISE study.

BACKGROUND: No randomized clinical trials have directly compared the cardiorenal effectiveness of empagliflozin and GLP-1RA agents with demonstrated cardioprotective effects in patients with a broad spectrum of cardiovascular risk. We reported the final-year results of the EMPRISE study, a monitoring program designed to evaluate the cardiorenal effectiveness of empagliflozin across broad patient subgroups. METHODS: We identified patients ≥ 18 years old with type 2 diabetes who initiated empagliflozin or GLP-1RA from 2014 to 2019 using US Medicare and commercial claims databases. After 1:1 propensity score matching using 143 baseline characteristics, we evaluated risks of outcomes including myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke, hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE - MI, stroke, or cardiovascular mortality), a composite of HHF or cardiovascular mortality, and progression to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) (in patients with chronic kidney disease stages 3-4). We estimated hazard ratios (HR) and rate differences (RD) per 1,000 person-years, overall and within subgroups of age, sex, baseline atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), and heart failure (HF). RESULTS: We identified 141,541 matched pairs. Compared with GLP-1RA, empagliflozin was associated with similar risks of MI or stroke [HR: 0.99 (0.92, 1.07); RD: -0.23 (-1.25, 0.79)], and lower risks of HHF [HR: 0.50 (0.44, 0.56); RD: -2.28 (-2.98, -1.59)], MACE [HR: 0.90 (0.82, 0.99); RD: -2.54 (-4.76, -0.32)], cardiovascular mortality or HHF [HR: 0.77 (0.69, 0.86); RD: -4.11 (-5.95, -2.29)], and ESKD [0.75 (0.60, 0.94); RD: -6.77 (-11.97, -1.61)]. Absolute risk reductions were larger in older patients and in those with baseline ASCVD/HF. They did not differ by sex. CONCLUSIONS: The cardiovascular benefits of empagliflozin vs. cardioprotective GLP-1RA agents were larger in older patients and in patients with history of ASCVD or HF, while they did not differ by sex. In patients with advanced CKD, empagliflozin was associated with risk reductions of progression to ESKD.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors vs. sitagliptin in heart failure and type 2 diabetes: an observational cohort study.

AIMS: The effectiveness of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) in patients with heart failure (HF) in routine clinical practice is not extensively studied. This study aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of SGLT2i vs. sitagliptin in older adults with HF and type 2 diabetes and to investigate whether there were any differences between agents within the SGLT2i class or for reduced and preserved ejection fraction. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using Medicare claims data (April 2013 to December 2019), 16 253 SGLT2i initiators vs. 43 352 initiators of sitagliptin aged ≥65 years with type 2 diabetes and HF were included. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, hospitalization for HF or urgent visit requiring intravenous diuretics; secondary outcomes included its individual components. Propensity score fine stratification weighted Cox regression was used to adjust for 100 pre-exposure characteristics. Mean age was 74 years; 49.8% were women. Initiation of SGLT2i vs. sitagliptin was associated with a lower risk of the primary composite outcome [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.72; 95% confidence interval 0.67-0.77]. The adjusted HRs were 0.70 (0.63-0.78) for all-cause mortality, 0.64 (0.58-0.70) for hospitalization for HF, and 0.77 (0.69-0.86) for urgent visit requiring intravenous diuretics. Similar associations with the primary composite outcome were observed for all three agents within the SGLT2i class, for reduced and preserved ejection fraction, and subgroups based on demographics, comorbidities, and other HF treatments. Bias-calibrated HRs for the primary endpoint using negative and positive control outcomes ranged between 0.81 and 0.89, suggesting that the observed benefit could not be fully explained by residual confounding. CONCLUSION: In routine US clinical practice, SGLT2i demonstrated robust clinical effectiveness in older adults with HF and type 2 diabetes compared with sitagliptin, with no evidence of heterogeneity across the SGLT2i class or across ejection fraction.

Coronary Flow Reserve, Inflammation, and Myocardial Strain: The CIRT-CFR Trial.

Inflammation is a key determinant of cardiovascular outcomes, but its role in heart failure is uncertain. In patients with cardiometabolic disease enrolled in the prospective, multicenter ancillary study of CIRT (Cardiovascular Inflammation Reduction Trial), CIRT-CFR (Coronary Flow Reserve to Assess Cardiovascular Inflammation), impaired coronary flow reserve was independently associated with increased inflammation and myocardial strain despite well-controlled lipid, glycemic, and hemodynamic profiles. Inflammation modified the relationship between CFR and myocardial strain, disrupting the association between cardiac blood flow and function. Future studies are needed to investigate whether an early inflammation-mediated reduction in CFR capturing microvascular ischemia may lead to heart failure in patients with cardiometabolic disease. (Cardiovascular Inflammation Reduction Trial [CIRT]; NCT01594333; Coronary Flow Reserve to Assess Cardiovascular Inflammation [CIRT-CFR]; NCT02786134).

Effect of Thromboprophylaxis on Clinical Outcomes After COVID-19 Hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have an increased incidence of thromboembolism. The role of extended thromboprophylaxis after hospital discharge is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether anticoagulation is superior to placebo in reducing death and thromboembolic complications among patients discharged after COVID-19 hospitalization. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04650087). SETTING: Done during 2021 to 2022 among 127 U.S. hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 18 years or older hospitalized with COVID-19 for 48 hours or more and ready for discharge, excluding those with a requirement for, or contraindication to, anticoagulation. INTERVENTION: 2.5 mg of apixaban versus placebo twice daily for 30 days. MEASUREMENTS: The primary efficacy end point was a 30-day composite of death, arterial thromboembolism, and venous thromboembolism. The primary safety end points were 30-day major bleeding and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. RESULTS: Enrollment was terminated early, after 1217 participants were randomly assigned, because of a lower than anticipated event rate and a declining rate of COVID-19 hospitalizations. Median age was 54 years, 50.4% were women, 26.5% were Black, and 16.7% were Hispanic; 30.7% had a World Health Organization severity score of 5 or greater, and 11.0% had an International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism risk prediction score of greater than 4. Incidence of the primary end point was 2.13% (95% CI, 1.14 to 3.62) in the apixaban group and 2.31% (CI, 1.27 to 3.84) in the placebo group. Major bleeding occurred in 2 (0.4%) and 1 (0.2%) and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 3 (0.6%) and 6 (1.1%) apixaban-treated and placebo-treated participants, respectively. By day 30, thirty-six (3.0%) participants were lost to follow-up, and 8.5% of apixaban and 11.9% of placebo participants permanently discontinued the study drug treatment. LIMITATIONS: The introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines decreased the risk for hospitalization and death. Study enrollment spanned the peaks of the Delta and Omicron variants in the United States, which influenced illness severity. CONCLUSION: The incidence of death or thromboembolism was low in this cohort of patients discharged after hospitalization with COVID-19. Because of early enrollment termination, the results were imprecise and the study was inconclusive. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Canakinumab's Effect Against Subsequent Gout Flares and High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein Levels: A Causal Mediation Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to quantify the value of early suppression of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) levels as a biomarker of the protective role of canakinumab against future gout flares. METHODS: We conducted a post hoc causal mediation analysis of the Canakinumab Anti-Inflammatory Thrombosis Outcome Study for gout flares. The 3-month change in the log hsCRP level was the mediator of interest. We used linear regression for the hsCRP level mediator and Cox or Weibull regression for gout-flare outcomes, combining them in causal mediation analysis. We examined the cohort overall, as well as stratified by prevalent gout at baseline. RESULTS: We analyzed 9,221 patients without prevalent gout and 747 with prevalent gout. The Cox regression hazard ratio (HR) for a gout flare was 0.50 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.37-0.68) comparing canakinumab with placebo, of which 6% was explained by the mediated effect through hsCRP level reduction in the first 3 months. In the prevalent-gout subgroup, the HR was 0.58 (95% CI 0.36-0.95), of which 31% was explained by the mediated effect through hsCRP level reduction. The Weibull analysis gave a proportion-mediated estimate of 47%. The indirect effect via hsCRP level reductions was unclear in the subgroup without prevalent gout. CONCLUSION: The first 3-month reduction in hsCRP level was not a good biomarker for canakinumab's protective effect on future gout flares in the overall cohort. Among patients with prevalent gout, there may be a potential role for early hsCRP level reduction as a biomarker for interleukin-1ß inhibitors' future gout-flare benefit.

Triglyceride Lowering with Pemafibrate to Reduce Cardiovascular Risk.

BACKGROUND: High triglyceride levels are associated with increased cardiovascular risk, but whether reductions in these levels would lower the incidence of cardiovascular events is uncertain. Pemafibrate, a selective peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α modulator, reduces triglyceride levels and improves other lipid levels. METHODS: In a multinational, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, we assigned patients with type 2 diabetes, mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia (triglyceride level, 200 to 499 mg per deciliter), and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels of 40 mg per deciliter or lower to receive pemafibrate (0.2-mg tablets twice daily) or matching placebo. Eligible patients were receiving guideline-directed lipid-lowering therapy or could not receive statin therapy without adverse effects and had low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of 100 mg per deciliter or lower. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, coronary revascularization, or death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS: Among 10,497 patients (66.9% with previous cardiovascular disease), the median baseline fasting triglyceride level was 271 mg per deciliter, HDL cholesterol level 33 mg per deciliter, and LDL cholesterol level 78 mg per deciliter. The median follow-up was 3.4 years. As compared with placebo, the effects of pemafibrate on lipid levels at 4 months were -26.2% for triglycerides, -25.8% for very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) cholesterol, -25.6% for remnant cholesterol (cholesterol transported in triglyceride-rich lipoproteins after lipolysis and lipoprotein remodeling), -27.6% for apolipoprotein C-III, and 4.8% for apolipoprotein B. A primary end-point event occurred in 572 patients in the pemafibrate group and in 560 of those in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.91 to 1.15), with no apparent effect modification in any prespecified subgroup. The overall incidence of serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups, but pemafibrate was associated with a higher incidence of adverse renal events and venous thromboembolism and a lower incidence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes, mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia, and low HDL and LDL cholesterol levels, the incidence of cardiovascular events was not lower among those who received pemafibrate than among those who received placebo, although pemafibrate lowered triglyceride, VLDL cholesterol, remnant cholesterol, and apolipoprotein C-III levels. (Funded by the Kowa Research Institute; PROMINENT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03071692.).

Association of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors With Incident Atrial Fibrillation in Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes.

Importance: Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) have demonstrated many cardiovascular and kidney function benefits for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, the results of SGLT-2i use in primary prevention of atrial fibrillation (AF) were inconsistent in clinical trials, and incident AF was not a prespecified end point. Objective: To examine incident AF with initiation of an SGLT-2i compared with initiation of a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i) or a glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) among older adults (aged ≥66 years) with T2D in routine clinical practice. Design, Setting, and Participants: A population-based new-user cohort study included older adults with T2D who had no history of AF and were enrolled in Medicare fee-for-service from April 1, 2013, to December 31, 2018. Data analysis was performed from June 28 to December 1, 2021. Exposures: To control for potential confounding, new users of SGLT-2i were 1:1 propensity score (PS)-matched to new users of DPP-4is or GLP-1RAs in 2 pairwise comparisons based on 138 baseline covariates. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was incident AF, defined as an inpatient diagnosis code for AF. Hazard ratios (HRs) and rate differences (RDs) per 1000 person-years, with their 95% CIs, were estimated in the PS-matched groups. Results: New users of SGLT-2is were 1:1 PS-matched to new users of a DPP-4i (n = 74 868) or GLP-1RA (n = 80 475). Overall, the mean (SD) age of study participants was 72 (5) years, and 165 984 were women (53.4%). The risk of incident AF was lower in the SGLT-2i group than the matched DPP-4i group (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.89; RD, -3.7; 95% CI, -5.2 to -2.2 per 1000 person-years) or the matched GLP-1RA group (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.98; RD, -1.8; 95% CI, -3.2 to -0.3 per 1000 person-years). Results were consistent across several sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that the initiation of an SGLT-2i was associated with a reduced risk of incident AF compared with a DPP-4i or GLP-1RA. The results may be helpful when weighing the potential risks and benefits of various glucose level-lowering agents in older adults with T2D.

Comparative Effectiveness of Empagliflozin vs Liraglutide or Sitagliptin in Older Adults With Diverse Patient Characteristics.

Importance: Limited evidence is available on the comparative effectiveness of empagliflozin vs alternative second-line glucose-lowering agents in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) receiving routine care who have a broad spectrum of cardiorenal risk. Objective: To evaluate the association of empagliflozin with cardiovascular outcomes relative to liraglutide and sitagliptin, stratified by age, sex, baseline atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), heart failure (HF), and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective comparative effectiveness cohort study used deidentified Medicare claims data from August 1, 2014, to September 30, 2018, with follow-up from drug initiation until treatment changes, death, or gap in Medicare enrollment (>30 days). Data analysis was performed from October 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022. Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries older than 65 years with T2D were included. A total of 45 788 patients (22 894 propensity score-matched pairs initiating treatment with either empagliflozin or liraglutide) were included in cohort 1, and 45 624 patients (22 812 propensity score-matched pairs initiating treatment with either empagliflozin or sitagliptin) were included in cohort 2. Exposures: Empagliflozin vs liraglutide (cohort 1) or empagliflozin vs sitagliptin (cohort 2). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were (1) modified major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), including a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality, and (2) hospitalization for heart failure (HHF). Hazard ratios (HRs) and rate differences (RDs) per 1000 person-years were estimated, adjusting for 143 baseline covariates using 1:1 propensity score matching. Results: Among 45 788 patients in cohort 1, the mean (SD) age was 71.9 (5.1) years; 23 396 patients (51.1%) were female, 22 392 (48.9%) were male, and 38 049 (83.1%) were White. Among 45 624 patients in cohort 2, the mean (SD) age was 72.1 (5.1) years; 21 418 patients (46.9%) were female, 24 206 (53.1%) were male, and 37 814 (82.9%) were White. Relative to patients initiating liraglutide, those initiating empagliflozin had a similar risk of the modified MACE outcome (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79-1.03) and a reduced risk of HHF (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.52-0.82). Across subgroups, empagliflozin was associated with a lower risk of the modified MACE outcome in patients with a history of ASCVD (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.98) and HF (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60-1.00) compared with liraglutide, and potential heterogeneity in estimates was observed by sex (male: HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.71-1.01]; female: HR, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.94-1.42]; P = .02 for homogeneity). However, reductions in the risk of HHF were observed across most subgroups (eg, ASCVD: HR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.51-0.85]; HF: HR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.49-0.88]). Compared with sitagliptin, empagliflozin was associated with reduced risks of the modified MACE outcome (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.60-0.77) and HHF (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.36-0.56), which were consistent across all subgroups. Absolute benefits of empagliflozin vs sitagliptin were larger in patients with a history of ASCVD (modified MACE: RD, -17.6 [95% CI, -24.9 to -10.4]; HHF: RD, -16.7 [95% CI, -21.7 to -11.9]), HF (modified MACE: RD, -41.1 [95% CI, -59.9 to -22.6]; HHF: RD, -50.4 [95% CI, -67.5 to -33.9]), or CKD (modified MACE: RD, -26.7 [95% CI, -41.3 to -12.3]; HHF: RD, -31.9 [95% CI, -43.5 to -20.8]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this comparative effectiveness study of older adults, empagliflozin was associated with a lower risk of HHF (relative to both liraglutide and sitagliptin) and the modified MACE outcome (relative to sitagliptin), with larger absolute benefits in patients with established cardiorenal diseases. These findings suggest that older adults with T2D might benefit more from empagliflozin vs liraglutide or sitagliptin with respect to the risk of HHF; with respect to the risk of MACEs, empagliflozin might be preferable to liraglutide only in patients with cardiovascular disease history and to sitagliptin across all patient subgroups.

Comparative effectiveness of Empagliflozin in reducing the burden of recurrent cardiovascular hospitalizations among older adults with diabetes in routine clinical care.

BACKGROUND: The effect of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) on the total (first and recurrent) burden of cardiovascular (CV) hospitalizations, including hospitalization for heart failure, myocardial infarction, and stroke, is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of empagliflozin, an SGLT2i, on total CV hospitalizations among older adults with T2D. METHODS: Using data from Medicare fee-for-service (08/2014-09/2017), we identified 1:1 propensity score-matched cohorts of patients with T2D initiating empagliflozin versus sitagliptin or empagliflozin versus glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA), balancing >140 baseline covariates. We compared the risk of first and recurrent hospitalizations with any CV condition as the primary discharge diagnosis (ICD-9: 390-459; ICD-10: I00-I99), hospitalizations for heart failure (HHF), and myocardial infarctions (MI) or stroke. We estimated treatment effects based on the Ghosh-Lin semiparametric model for recurrent events as primary and joint frailty model as secondary analysis. RESULTS: We included 11,429 matched-pairs of empagliflozin and sitagliptin initiators and 17,502 matched-pairs of empagliflozin and GLP1-RA initiators with an average age of 72 years. Empagliflozin was associated with a reduced risk of total CV hospitalizations (0.80 [0.69-0.93] vs sitagliptin; 0.88 [0.77-1.00] vs GLP-1RA) and total HHF (0.70 [0.51-0.98] vs sitagliptin; 0.76 [0.56-1.03] vs GLP1-RA) over a mean follow up of 6.3 months. No differences between treatments were observed for MI or stroke. Results were consistent for joint frailty models. CONCLUSION: Empagliflozin, compared to sitagliptin or to a lesser extent GLP1-RA, was associated with a reduction in the burden of total CV hospitalizations and HHF in older patients with T2D.

Incorporation of natriuretic peptides with clinical risk scores to predict heart failure among individuals with dysglycaemia.

AIMS: To evaluate the performance of the WATCH-DM risk score, a clinical risk score for heart failure (HF), in patients with dysglycaemia and in combination with natriuretic peptides (NPs). METHODS AND RESULTS: Adults with diabetes/pre-diabetes free of HF at baseline from four cohort studies (ARIC, CHS, FHS, and MESA) were included. The machine learning- [WATCH-DM(ml)] and integer-based [WATCH-DM(i)] scores were used to estimate the 5-year risk of incident HF. Discrimination was assessed by Harrell's concordance index (C-index) and calibration by the Greenwood-Nam-D'Agostino (GND) statistic. Improvement in model performance with the addition of NP levels was assessed by C-index and continuous net reclassification improvement (NRI). Of the 8938 participants included, 3554 (39.8%) had diabetes and 432 (4.8%) developed HF within 5 years. The WATCH-DM(ml) and WATCH-DM(i) scores demonstrated high discrimination for predicting HF risk among individuals with dysglycaemia (C-indices = 0.80 and 0.71, respectively), with no evidence of miscalibration (GND P ≥0.10). The C-index of elevated NP levels alone for predicting incident HF among individuals with dysglycaemia was significantly higher among participants with low/intermediate (<13) vs. high (≥13) WATCH-DM(i) scores [0.71 (95% confidence interval 0.68-0.74) vs. 0.64 (95% confidence interval 0.61-0.66)]. When NP levels were combined with the WATCH-DM(i) score, HF risk discrimination improvement and NRI varied across the spectrum of risk with greater improvement observed at low/intermediate risk [WATCH-DM(i) <13] vs. high risk [WATCH-DM(i) ≥13] (C-index = 0.73 vs. 0.71; NRI = 0.45 vs. 0.17). CONCLUSION: The WATCH-DM risk score can accurately predict incident HF risk in community-based individuals with dysglycaemia. The addition of NP levels is associated with greater improvement in the HF risk prediction performance among individuals with low/intermediate risk than those with high risk.

Effect of Antithrombotic Therapy on Clinical Outcomes in Outpatients With Clinically Stable Symptomatic COVID-19: The ACTIV-4B Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Acutely ill inpatients with COVID-19 typically receive antithrombotic therapy, although the risks and benefits of this intervention among outpatients with COVID-19 have not been established. Objective: To assess whether anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy can safely reduce major adverse cardiopulmonary outcomes among symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention Trial was designed as a minimal-contact, adaptive, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to compare anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy among 7000 symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19. The trial was conducted at 52 US sites between September 2020 and June 2021; final follow-up was August 5, 2021. Prior to initiating treatment, participants were required to have platelet count greater than 100 000/mm3 and estimated glomerular filtration rate greater than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. Interventions: Random allocation in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to aspirin (81 mg orally once daily; n = 164), prophylactic-dose apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily; n = 165), therapeutic-dose apixaban (5 mg orally twice daily; n = 164), or placebo (n = 164) for 45 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was a composite of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary cause. The primary analyses for efficacy and bleeding events were limited to participants who took at least 1 dose of trial medication. Results: On June 18, 2021, the trial data and safety monitoring board recommended early termination because of lower than anticipated event rates; at that time, 657 symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 had been randomized (median age, 54 years [IQR, 46-59]; 59% women). The median times from diagnosis to randomization and from randomization to initiation of study treatment were 7 days and 3 days, respectively. Twenty-two randomized participants (3.3%) were hospitalized for COVID-19 prior to initiating treatment. Among the 558 patients who initiated treatment, the adjudicated primary composite end point occurred in 1 patient (0.7%) in the aspirin group, 1 patient (0.7%) in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, 2 patients (1.4%) in the 5-mg apixaban group, and 1 patient (0.7%) in the placebo group. The risk differences compared with placebo for the primary end point were 0.0% (95% CI not calculable) in the aspirin group, 0.7% (95% CI, -2.1% to 4.1%) in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, and 1.4% (95% CI, -1.5% to 5.0%) in the 5-mg apixaban group. Risk differences compared with placebo for bleeding events were 2.0% (95% CI, -2.7% to 6.8%), 4.5% (95% CI, -0.7% to 10.2%), and 6.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 12.9%) among participants who initiated therapy in the aspirin, prophylactic apixaban, and therapeutic apixaban groups, respectively, although none were major. Findings inclusive of all randomized patients were similar. Conclusions and Relevance: Among symptomatic clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with aspirin or apixaban compared with placebo did not reduce the rate of a composite clinical outcome. However, the study was terminated after enrollment of 9% of participants because of an event rate lower than anticipated. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04498273.