Ohman, E. Magnus

Hypertension is the single most important modifiable risk factor for preventable disability and death worldwide and disproportionately affects socially disadvantaged populations. We face a paradox—blood pressure control is low and recent trends suggest it is even declining, despite the availability of inexpensive and effective therapies. A variety of barriers on the system, patient, and healthcare provider side hinder effective drug-based risk factor management. Clinical inertia represents a major barrier on the clinician side, as well as workload and limited education. Common barriers on the patient side include limited English proficiency, low health literacy, and nonadherence with misaligned incentives, limited resources, lack of structured clinical pathways, and reimbursement issues. New innovations in the field of RNA-targeted therapies and device-based interventions could prevent and potentially even cure diseases previously designated as chronic health conditions, such as hypertension. Such novel therapies could potentially overcome several major barriers to effective treatment, including nonadherence. Drug development of novel, long-acting treatments requires consideration of specific clinical trial design aspects, including safety collection, benefit: risk assessment, the development and assessment of novel, qualitative surrogate end points, such as time-in-therapeutic range, the use of representative trial settings as well as the definition of standard of care in placebo-controlled trials, which should be of reasonably high-quality allowing for credible evaluation of effectiveness. Here, we provide an overview on barriers to effective treatment and a framework for trials assessing novel treatments for cardiovascular disease risk factors, including early and broad implementation programs.

Background: In the ACUITY Trial, patients (pts) with chronic renal insufficiency (CRI) had significantly higher rates of ischemic events and major bleeding compared to pts without CRI at 30 days. Bivalirudin (Biv) monotherapy provided similar protection from ischemic events but with significantly less bleeding compared to heparin + a GPIIb/IIIa inhibitor (Hep+GPI). The impact of a Biv alone strategy on one year mortality is unknown. Methods: Pts with moderate and high risk acute coronary syndromes (ACS) were randomized to Hep + GPI, Biv + GPI, or Biv monotherapy. CRI was defined as baseline creatinine clearance (CrCl) <60 mL/min. We evaluated the impact of CRI and antithrombotic strategy on composite ischemia (death, MI, or revascularization) and mortality at one year. Results: Of the pts enrolled, 12,933 had baseline CrCl data: 2468 (19.1%) pts had CrCl ≥60 mL/min and 10,465 (80.9%) pts had CrCl <60 mL/min. Rates of major bleeding at 30 days in pts with CRI were significantly lower with Biv alone vs Hep+GPI (6.2% vs 9.8%, p<0.01). Pts with CRI had higher mortality at one year compared to those without CRI (8.7% vs 3.0%, p<0.001). There was no difference in composite ischemia for pts who received Biv monotherapy vs Hep + GPI (23.0% vs 21.4%, p=0.10). One year mortality by antithrombin strategy is shown in the Figure . Conclusions: CRI in pts with ACS is associated with higher rates of one year mortality. In these high risk pts, Biv monotherapy improved early clinical outcomes compared to Hep + GPI by reducing major bleeding, and resulted in similar rates of one year mortality. Cumulative Mortality at One Year, Patients with CRI

Background— Studies report a protective effect of higher attained educational level (AEL) on cardiovascular outcomes. However, most of these studies have been conducted in high-income countries (HICs) and lack representation from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), which bear >80% of the global burden of cardiovascular disease. Methods and Results— The Reduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health (REACH) Registry is a prospective study of 67 888 subjects with either established atherothrombotic (coronary, cerebrovascular, and/or peripheral arterial) disease or multiple atherothrombotic risk factors enrolled from 5587 physician practices in 44 countries. At baseline, AEL (0 to 8 years, 9 to 12 years, trade or technical school, and university) was self-reported for 61 332 subjects. Outcomes included the baseline prevalence of atherothrombotic risk factors and the rate of incident cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) through 23 months across AEL groups, stratified by sex and world region (LMICs or HICs). Educational attainment was inversely associated with age and diabetes mellitus and directly associated with hypercholesterolemia in all subjects. However, for other risk factors such as obesity, smoking, hypertension, and baseline burden of vascular disease, AEL was protective (inversely associated) in HICs but not protective in LMICs. The protective effect of greater AEL on incident cardiovascular events was strongest in men from HICs ( P <0.0001), more modest in women from HICs ( P =0.0026) and in men from LMICs ( P =0.082), and essentially absent in women from LMICs ( P =0.32). Conclusion— In contrast to HICs, higher AEL may not be protective against cardiovascular events in LMICs, particularly in women.