Escobedo, Jorge

Background TAILOR‐PCI (Tailored Antiplatelet Initiation to Lessen Outcomes due to decreased Clopidogrel Response After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) studied genotype‐guided selection of antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention versus conventional therapy with clopidogrel. The presence of CYP2C19 loss‐of‐function alleles in patients treated with clopidogrel may be associated with increased risk for ischemic events. We report a prespecified sex‐specific analysis of genotyping and associated cardiovascular outcomes from this study. Methods and Results Associations between sex and major adverse cardiac events (MACE: cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis, and severe recurrent ischemia) and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) bleeding at 12 months were analyzed using Cox proportional‐hazards models. Among 5276 randomized patients, loss‐of‐function carriers were observed in ≈36% of both sexes, and >80% of carriers were heterozygotes. At 12 months, after adjustment for baseline differences, risks of MACE (HR , 1.28 [0.97 to 1.68]; P =0.088) and BARC bleeding (hazard ratio [HR], 1.36 [0.91 to 2.05]; P =0.14) were comparable among women and men. There were no significant interactions between sex and treatment strategy for MACE interaction P value ( P int =0.59) or BARC bleeding ( P int =0.47) nor for sex and genotype (MACE P int =0.15, and BARC bleeding P int =0.60). Conclusions CYP2C19 loss‐of‐function alleles were present in ≈1 in 3 women and men. Women had similar adjusted risks of MACE and bleeding as men following percutaneous coronary intervention. Genotype‐guided therapy did not significantly reduce the risk of MACE or bleeding relative to conventional therapy for both sexes. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01742117.

OBJECTIVEThe Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) trial demonstrated similar long-term clinical effectiveness of insulin-sensitizing (IS) versus insulin-providing (IP) treatments for type 2 diabetes on cardiovascular outcomes in a cohort with documented coronary artery disease. We evaluated the effects of randomized glycemic control strategy (IS vs. IP) on the prevalence and incidence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN).RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSDPN (defined as Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument [MNSI] clinical examination score >2) was assessed at baseline and yearly for 4 years. DPN prevalence and incidence were compared by intention-to-treat modeling by logistic generalized estimating equation models for prevalence and Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression models for incidence rates.RESULTSResults are reported for 2,159 BARI 2D participants (70% males) with valid baseline and at least one follow-up MNSI score (mean age 62 ± 9 years, mean HbA1c 7.7 ± 1.6%, diabetes duration 10 ± 9 years). There were no differences in the prevalence of DPN between the IS and the IP groups throughout the 4 years of follow-up. In 1,075 BARI 2D participants with no DPN at baseline, the 4-year cumulative incidence rate of DPN was significantly lower in the IS (66%) than in the IP (72%) strategy group (P = 0.02), which remained significant after adjusting for the in-trial HbA1c (P = 0.04). In subgroup analyses, IS strategy had a greater benefit in men (hazard ratio 0.75 [99% CI 0.58–0.99], P < 0.01).CONCLUSIONSAmong patients with type 2 diabetes followed for up to 4 years during BARI 2D, a glycemic control therapy with IS significantly reduced the incidence of DPN compared with IP therapy and may add further benefit for men.

Background— Health status is a key outcome for comparing treatments, particularly when mortality does not differ significantly. Methods and Results— Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) randomized 2368 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and stable ischemic heart disease to (1) prompt revascularization versus medical therapy and (2) insulin sensitization versus insulin provision. Randomization was stratified by the intended method of revascularization, coronary artery bypass graft surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention. The Duke Activity Status Index and RAND Energy, Health Distress, and Self-Rated Health scales were assessed at study entry and annually thereafter; linear mixed models were used to evaluate the effect of randomized treatment on these measures. Health status improved significantly from baseline to 1 year ( P <0.001) in each randomized treatment group. Compared with medical therapy, prompt revascularization was associated with significantly greater improvements in Duke Activity Status Index (1.32 points; P <0.001), Energy (1.36 points; P =0.02), and Self-rated Health (1.77 points; P =0.007) but not Health Distress (−0.47; P =0.46). These treatment effects were largely maintained over 4 years of follow-up. The effect of revascularization on the Duke Activity Status Index was significantly larger in the subgroup of patients intended for coronary artery bypass graft surgery compared with the subgroup intended for percutaneous coronary intervention. Health status did not differ significantly on any of the 4 measures between the insulin provision and insulin sensitization strategies. Conclusions— Prompt coronary revascularization was associated with small yet statistically significant improvements in health status compared with initial medical therapy among patients with diabetes mellitus and stable ischemic heart disease. Clinical Trial Registration— http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00006305.