Granger, Christopher B.

AbstractBackgroundCardiac troponin T (cTnT) and I (cTnI) concentrations provide strong prognostic information in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Whether the associations between cardiac troponin concentrations and mortality and morbidity differ by sex is not known.ObjectivesTo assess whether men and women have different concentrations and prognostic value of cTnT and cTnI measurements in anticoagulated patients with AF.MethodscTnT and cTnI concentrations were measured with high‐sensitivity (hs) assays in EDTA plasma samples obtained from the multicentre ARISTOTLE trial, which randomized patients with AF and at least one risk factor for stroke or systemic embolic event to warfarin or apixaban. Patients were stratified according to sex and the associations between hs‐troponin concentrations, and all‐cause death, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke or systemic embolic event and major bleeding were assessed in multivariable regression models.ResultsWe found higher cardiac troponin concentrations in men (n = 9649) compared to women (n = 5331), both for hs‐cTnT (median 11.8 [Q1‐3 8.1–18.0] vs. 9.6 [6.7–14.3] ng L−1, P < 0.001) and hs‐cTnI (5.8 [3.4–10.8] vs. 4.9 [3.1–8.8] ng L−1, P < 0.001). Adjusting for baseline demographics, comorbidities and medications, men still had significantly higher hs‐troponin concentrations than women. C‐reactive protein and N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide concentrations were higher in female patients. Both hs‐cTnT and hs‐cTnI concentrations were associated with all clinical outcomes similarly in men and women (p‐value for interaction >0.05 for all end‐points).ConclusionMen have higher hs‐troponin concentrations than women in AF. Regardless of sex, hs‐troponin concentrations remain similarly associated with adverse clinical outcomes in anticoagulated patients with AF.

Abstract Aims As health systems around the world increasingly look to measure and improve the value of care that they provide to patients, being able to measure the outcomes that matter most to patients is vital. To support the shift towards value-based health care in atrial fibrillation (AF), the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) assembled an international Working Group (WG) of 30 volunteers, including health professionals and patient representatives to develop a standardized minimum set of outcomes for benchmarking care delivery in clinical settings. Methods and results Using an online-modified Delphi process, outcomes important to patients and health professionals were selected and categorized into (i) long-term consequences of disease outcomes, (ii) complications of treatment outcomes, and (iii) patient-reported outcomes. The WG identified demographic and clinical variables for use as case-mix risk adjusters. These included baseline demographics, comorbidities, cognitive function, date of diagnosis, disease duration, medications prescribed and AF procedures, as well as smoking, body mass index (BMI), alcohol intake, and physical activity. Where appropriate, and for ease of implementation, standardization of outcomes and case-mix variables was achieved using ICD codes. The standard set underwent an open review process in which over 80% of patients surveyed agreed with the outcomes captured by the standard set. Conclusion Implementation of these consensus recommendations could help institutions to monitor, compare and improve the quality and delivery of chronic AF care. Their consistent definition and collection, using ICD codes where applicable, could also broaden the implementation of more patient-centric clinical outcomes research in AF.

Background: The use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with oral anticoagulants has been associated with an increased risk of bleeding. We investigated the risk of bleeding and major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation taking NSAIDs and apixaban or warfarin. Methods: The ARISTOTLE trial (Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation; n=18 201) compared apixaban with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation at an increased risk of stroke. Patients in ARISTOTLE without severe renal (creatine clearance ≤30 mL/min) or liver disease were included in this analysis (n=17 423). NSAID use at baseline, NSAID use during the trial (incident NSAID use), and never users were described. The primary outcome was major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, heart failure hospitalization, stroke or systemic embolism, and all-cause mortality. NSAID use during the trial, and the interaction between randomized treatment, was analyzed using time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Those with baseline NSAID use (n=832 [4.8%]), incident NSAID use (n=2185 [13.2%]), and never users were similar in median age (age [25th, 75th]; 70 [64, 77] versus 70 [63, 75] versus 70 [62, 76]). Those with NSAID use at baseline and incident NSAID use were more likely to have a history of bleeding than never users (24.5% versus 21.0% versus 15.6%, respectively). During a median follow-up (25th, 75th) of 1.8 (1.4, 2.3) years and when excluding those taking NSAID at baseline, we found that incident NSAID use was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (hazard ratio [HR], 1.61 [95% CI, 1.11–2.33]) and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (HR, 1.70 [95% CI, 1.16–2.48]), but not gastrointestinal bleeding. No significant interaction was observed between NSAID use and randomized treatment for any outcome. Conclusions: A substantial number of patients in the ARISTOTLE trial took NSAIDs. Incident NSAID use was associated with major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, but not with gastrointestinal bleeding. The safety and efficacy of apixaban versus warfarin appeared not significantly to be altered by NSAID use. This study warrants more investigation of the effect of NSAIDs on the outcomes of patients treated with apixaban. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00412984.

Background: Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices provide hemodynamic assistance for shock refractory to pharmacological treatment. Most registries have focused on single devices or specific etiologies of shock, limiting data regarding overall practice patterns with temporary MCS in cardiac intensive care units. Methods: The CCCTN (Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network) is a multicenter network of tertiary CICUs in North America. Between September 2017 and September 2018, each center (n=16) contributed a 2-month snapshot of consecutive medical CICU admissions. Results: Of the 270 admissions using temporary MCS, 33% had acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (CS), 31% had CS not related to acute myocardial infarction, 11% had mixed shock, and 22% had an indication other than shock. Among all 585 admissions with CS or mixed shock, 34% used temporary MCS during the CICU stay with substantial variation between centers (range: 17%–50%). The most common temporary MCS devices were intraaortic balloon pumps (72%), Impella (17%), and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (11%), although intraaortic balloon pump use also varied between centers (range: 40%–100%). Patients managed with intraaortic balloon pump versus other forms of MCS (advanced MCS) had lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores and less severe metabolic derangements. Illness severity was similar at high- versus low-MCS utilizing centers and at centers with more advanced MCS use. Conclusions: There is wide variation in the use of temporary MCS among patients with shock in tertiary CICUs. While hospital-level variation in temporary MCS device selection is not explained by differences in illness severity, patient-level variation appears to be related, at least in part, to illness severity.

BackgroundThe optimal anticoagulation strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and bioprosthetic valve (BPV) replacement or native valve repair remains uncertain.HypothesisWe evaluated the safety and efficacy of apixaban vs warfarin in patients with AF and a history of BPV replacement or native valve repair.MethodsUsing data from Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation (ARISTOTLE) (n = 18 201), a randomized trial comparing apixaban with warfarin in patients with AF, we analyzed the subgroup of patients (n = 251) with prior valve surgery. We contacted sites by telephone to obtain additional data about prior valve surgery. Full data were available for 156 patients. The primary efficacy endpoint was stroke/systemic embolism. The primary safety endpoint was major bleeding. Treatment groups were compared using a Cox regression model.ResultsIn ARISTOTLE, 104 (0.6%) patients had a history of BPV replacement (n = 73 [aortic], n = 26 [mitral], n = 5 [mitral and aortic]) and 52 (0.3%) had a history of valve repair (n = 50 [mitral], n = 2 [aortic]). Among patients with BPVs, 55 were randomized to apixaban and 49 to warfarin. Among those with a history of native valve repair, 32 were randomized to apixaban and 20 to warfarin. Overall clinical event rates were low, with no significant differences between apixaban and warfarin for any outcomes.ConclusionsIn patients with AF and a history of BPV replacement or repair, the safety and efficacy of apixaban compared with warfarin was consistent with results from ARISTOTLE. These data suggest that apixaban may be reasonable for patients with BPVs or prior valve repair, though future larger randomized trials are needed.ClinicalTrials.govNCT00412984.

Background Different approaches to safety event collection influence the determination of liver toxicity within drug development programs. Herein, a description of how fasiglifam-induced liver injury was detected is provided. Methods This eight-trial drug development program was intended to evaluate fasiglifam (25 mg, 50 mg) against placebo or active comparators (glimepiride, sitagliptin) in approximately 11,000 suboptimally controlled patients with type 2 diabetes (terminated Dec 2013 due to liver toxicity). Liver safety had been pre-identified as a concern, and within the phase 3 trials, was measured through (1) adverse event reporting, (2) central predefined liver monitoring schedule with various thresholds for potential drug-induced liver injury, and (3) blinded adjudication of serious liver toxicity by a panel of experts in drug-induced liver injury. A single data monitoring committee provided safety oversight across all trials within the program. Findings Prior to program termination, 7595 of 7602 (99.9%) randomized participants across the eight trials received at least one dose of the study drug (fasiglifam, placebo, or active control). No concerning trends were noted in adverse or serious adverse event frequency, suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction, alanine or aspartate transaminase elevations, or hepatobiliary or gastrointestinal adverse events as reported by local site investigators. However, the predefined central liver safety measurements revealed a greater frequency of possible Hy’s Law cases (5 vs 2) and a 3- to 7-fold greater relative risk in alanine or aspartate transaminase elevation (with respect to upper limit of normal) within fasiglifam recipients compared with placebo/active control: alanine or aspartate transaminase > 3×: relative risk 3.34 (95% confidence interval 2.29–4.90), alanine or aspartate transaminase > 5×: relative risk 6.60 (95% confidence interval 3.03–14.38), alanine or aspartate transaminase > 8×: relative risk 6.14 (95% confidence interval 2.18–17.27), and alanine or aspartate transaminase > 10×: relative risk 6.74 (95% confidence interval 2.05, 22.14). All elevations resolved on study drug discontinuation. Drug-induced liver injury was adjudicated as highly likely or probably related in 0.64% of fasiglifam-treated versus 0.06% placebo or active control-treated patients. Conclusion In spite of clear liver toxicity detected with a systematic surveillance program, liver safety signals were not identified from investigator adverse event reporting alone. By integrating key safety monitoring processes within the randomized design of adequately sized clinical trials, the rare but serious liver toxicity signal became clear, leading to timely program termination.

Objectives Compare the effect of apixaban and warfarin on coagulation and primary haemostasis biomarkers in atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods The biomarker substudy from the Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation trial included 4850 patients with AF randomised to treatment with apixaban or warfarin. Sixty per cent of patients used vitamin K antagonist (VKA) within 7 days before randomisation. Prothrombin fragment 1+2 (F1+2), D-dimer, soluble CD40 ligand (sCD40L) and von Willebrand factor (vWF) antigen were analysed at randomisation and after 2 months of study treatment. Results In patients not on VKA treatment at randomisation, F1+2 and D-dimer levels were decreased by 25% and 23%, respectively, with apixaban, and by 59% and 38%, respectively, with warfarin (p<0.0001 for treatment differences for both). In patients on VKA at randomisation, F1+2 and D-dimer levels increased by 41% and 10%, respectively, with apixaban and decreased by 37% and 11%, respectively, with warfarin (p<0.0001 for treatment differences for both). sCD40L levels were slightly increased at 2 months, regardless of VKA or randomised treatment. Apixaban and warfarin also both reduced vWF antigen regardless of VKA treatment. The efficacy (stroke) and safety (bleeding) of apixaban compared with warfarin was similar irrespectively of biomarker levels at 2 months. Conclusions Treatment with apixaban compared with warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with AF was associated with less reduction in thrombin generation and fibrin turnover. This effect of apixaban could contribute to the clinical results where apixaban was superior to warfarin both in stroke prevention and in reducing bleeding risk. Trial registration number NCT00412984.