Voeks, Jenifer H.

Baseline Differences in Risk Factor Control and Medication Use Between 2 Trials Employing Intensive Medical Management (SAMMPRIS & CREST2) Background: The CREST2 trial Intensive Medical Management (IMM) protocol was adapted from the SAMMPRIS trial. However, since the 2011 publication of initial results of SAMMPRIS, there has been a greater appreciation for the importance of risk factor control in patients at risk of stroke associated with atherosclerosis. Therefore, we sought to determine differences in baseline risk factor control and medication use between SAMMPRIS and CREST2. Methods: Baseline risk factor and medication use data from 451 patients enrolled in SAMMPRIS (2008-2011) with severe symptomatic intracranial atherosclerosis and 1473 patients enrolled in CREST2 (2014-2019) with severe asymptomatic carotid stenosis were compared using the Chi-square test and t-test. Results: The Table shows baseline risk factor values and medications. SAMMPRIS patients were younger but had significantly worse risk factor control than CREST2 patients for all measures. There was no significant difference in statin use at baseline, but the mean SAMMPRIS subjects’ LDL was 16.1 mg/dL higher than in CREST2. CREST2 patients had higher rates of use of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), calcium channel blockers (CCB), and thiazides, but lower rates of use of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. Conclusions: Despite being older, CREST2 patients have significantly better baseline risk factor profiles than SAMMPRIS patients. This could be due to greater appreciation of the importance of risk factor control and healthy lifestyle habits for stroke prevention or more aggressive treatment targets in guideline recommendations. Although risk factor control appears to be improving since SAMMPRIS, many CREST2 patients are still not meeting recommended risk factor goals at baseline and may benefit from IMM protocols.

Introduction: Using pooled data from randomized trials of symptomatic patients assigned to carotid artery stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA), we have previously shown age to be an effect modifier, with increasing risk at older ages for CAS but not for CEA. To extend assessment of age as an effect modifier to the asymptomatic population, we combined the asymptomatic patients from CREST with the patients from ACT I. Methods: We analyzed data from 2544 subjects with >= 70% carotid stenosis randomized to CAS or CEA in addition to standard management of cardiovascular risk factors. CREST enrolled 1091 (548 CAS, 543 CEA) and ACT I enrolled 1453 (1089 CAS, 364 CEA) asymptomatic patients less than 80 years old (upper age eligibility in ACT I). We examined the impact of age on risk within CAS-treated and CEA-treated patients using Kaplan-Meier methods. Age was considered in three strata (< 65, 65 to 74, and 75+). The pre-specified, primary composite endpoint was stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the periprocedural period or any ipsilateral stroke within 4 years after randomization. Results: For patients assigned to CAS, risk differed between the age strata (p <0.0001) where relative to those under age 65, there was no difference in risk for those aged 65 to 74 (HR = 1.3 ; 95% CI: 0.7, 2.3, p=0.38), but those aged 75+ were at substantially higher risk (HR = 2.9; 95% CI: 1.5, 5.5, p=0.001). In contrast, risk did not differ by age strata (p = 0.80) for those assigned to CEA. Conclusions: Age-related risk factors, e.g. carotid anatomy and underlying cerebral pathology, should be considered before selecting patients aged 75+ for CAS.

Introduction: Careful selection and timely activation of clinical sites in multicenter clinical trials is critical for successful enrollment, subject safety, and generalizability of results. Methods: In the Carotid Revascularization and Medical Management for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis Trial (CREST-2), a multidisciplinary Site Selection Committee evaluated applicants referred via participation in CREST, CREST principal investigators (PIs) and other investigators, StrokeNet and industry partners. Data for consideration included performance metrics in CREST and other carotid trials and a site selection questionnaire containing information on the investigators as well as quantitative data on carotid procedures performed. Any FDA warning letters were reviewed. Results: The Committee met bi-weekly for 36 months (n=64 meetings). Applications from 176 sites between March 2014 and July 2016 were evaluated: 153 were approved, 7 are under Committee review, 5 were approved but withdrew, 5 were placed on a waiting list, and 6 were rejected. One-hundred-four sites have completed the regulatory and training requirements to randomize: 51 (49%) academic medical centers, 31 (30%) private hospital-based centers, 16 (15%) private office-based practices, and 6 (6%) Veterans Administration medical centers. The mean times from application-to- approval was 5.2 weeks (interquartile range, 1.9, 6.2), and from approval-to-randomization status was 46.7 weeks (interquartile range, 35.4, 51.7). Specialties of the 104 site PIs are vascular surgery for 35 (33.7%), cardiology for 30 (28.8%), neurology for 25 (24%), neurosurgery for 8 (7.7%), interventional radiology for 4 (3.8%), and interventional neuroradiology for 2 (1.9%). Conclusions: Careful site selection is time-consuming for prospective sites and for trial leadership. Times from application-to-site-approval were modest (mean = 5.2 weeks), in contrast to the times for completing regulatory and training requirements (mean = 46.7 weeks). However, subject enrollment by teams from a wide range of medical centers led by a multi-disciplinary cohort of PIs will promote the generalizability of trial results.

Introduction: Outcomes from endovascular procedures are highly dependent on the experience and skill of the operating physician. The multi-disciplinary CREST-2 Interventional Management Committee (IMC) was charged with credentialing a cohort of skilled interventionists with adequate contemporary case volumes. Methods: Applicants were required to submit 25 consecutive cases completed within 5 years as primary operator out of a required total experience of ≥ 50 cases (≥ 20 for operators completing training). Interventionists not approved on initial review were asked to submit additional cases (with procedural angiograms), the number depending on quality and recent-quantity of the cases. Results: The IMC has had 102 meetings, and 283 interventionists have been evaluated: 104 (37%) interventionists were cardiologists, 64 (23%) vascular surgeons, 42 (15%) neurosurgeons, 32 (11%) neuroradiologists, 26 (9%) neurologists, 9 (3%) interventional radiologists, and 6 (2%) other. The mean total experience among the 226 interventionists with available information was 220±263 carotid stent cases (median 135; range 10-2500). A total of 7037 cases have been reviewed by the IMC, dating from August 2001 to April 2016, with 3366 symptomatic, 3541 asymptomatic and 130 undetermined. The range of cases reviewed per interventionist was 5 to 50. Of the 251 interventionists with sufficient periprocedural follow-up data, no stroke events were reported by 152 (60.5%), and at least one or more stroke events were reported by 99 (39.5%). The IMC has approved 115 interventionists, 29 at the first review and 86 subsequently, based upon submission and review of 631 additional contemporary cases (mean=7 cases per interventionist); 122 have approval pending submission of additional cases; 33 have been denied; 8 have been deferred; 4 have been approved for the CREST-2 Companion Registry only; and 1 is pending decision. Discussion: Rigorous evaluation and credentialing of carotid stenters in CREST-2 has been demanding, for the candidates and for the evaluators. Yet the cohort of interventionists so selected should be able to provide the high-quality stenting outcomes necessary for acceptance of the trial results.

Background: Concern for underrepresentation of minorities in clinical trials has focused on enrollment proportions and generalizability. The interplay of trial event-rates with diversity has not been emphasized. Methods: The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stent Trial (CREST) randomized 2502 patients and compared them by race, ethnicity, baseline characteristics, and primary outcome (any peri-procedural stroke, death or MI and subsequent ipsilateral stroke up to 10 years); those with unknown race or ethnicity were excluded. Proportional hazards models adjusting for age, sex, symptomatic status and treatment were used to test for a treatment by race/ethnicity interaction. Results: One-hundred-nine patients (4.4%) were black, 32 (1.3%) Asian, 2332 (93.4%) white, 11 (0.4%) other by self-report, and 18 (0.7%) unknown; 90 (3.6%) were Hispanic, 2377 (95%) non-Hispanic, and 35 (1.4%) unknown. Compared to whites, racial minorities were younger (mean age 67±8.9 vs 69±8.8, p=0.004), more often female (44% vs 34%, p=0.01), symptomatic (63 vs 52%, p=0.01), and diabetic (51% vs 29%, p<0.0001), but less often dyslipidemic (76% vs 85%, p=0.004), current smokers (19% vs 27%, p=0.04), or had a history of cardiovascular disease (34% vs 46%, p=0.007). Hispanics were more often diabetic (48% vs 30%, p=0.0002). The rate of the primary endpoint was 10.9%±0.9% at 10 years, and did not differ by race or ethnicity (p inter >0.24). In the context of this low rate, even if minority recruitment were increased to represent 50% of study participants, and if the treatment difference in one race were a greater hazard of HR = 1.49 (anticipated alternative hypothesis), then the hazard ratio in the other group would need to be <0.73, or >3.31, to have 90% power of detection. Conclusions: The proportion of racial and ethnicity participation in CREST was suboptimal at < 10%. Primary outcomes did not differ by minority or ethnic status. However, in low event-rate trials very high and even unrealistic enrollment goals for diversity, for example ≥50%, may still be insufficient for detection of outcome differences by race or ethnicity.

Introduction: Occurrence of stroke and myocardial infarction (MI) after carotid endarterectomy or stenting have each been associated with increased later mortality. Methods: In the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) 69 strokes, 37 protocol MIs, and 19 biomarker + only events occurred within 30 days among 2272 patients followed up to 10 years. Mortality was determined and compared for patients with stroke, MI, or biomarker + only to those without. Cox proportional hazard models adjusting for age, sex, symptomatic status and treatment were calculated to assess the relationship between mortality and stroke and mortality and MI status. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were plotted. Results: Patients with peri-procedural stroke had a 67% greater likelihood of long-term mortality compared to those without stroke (HR=1.67, 95% CI 1.15,2.43; p<0.007)(Figure A). Patients with a protocol MI had a 249% greater likelihood of mortality, and biomarker+ only patients had a 104% greater likelihood of mortality, compared to those without MI (HR=3.49; 95%CI 2.20,5.53, p<0.0001; and HR=2.04; 95% CI 1.09,3.83, p=0.03)(Figure B). Discussion: Stroke, MI, and biomarker + only events following CEA or CAS are associated with increased long-term mortality. The higher risk for MI may be a marker for patients with serious underlying heart disease, rather than causal, providing an opportunity to decrease long-term mortality through aggressive diagnostic evaluation and preventive treatment.

Background: Data from the CDC show that approximately one-quarter of adults have elevated triglyceride (TG) levels. Recent trials have demonstrated that pharmacologic treatment of high TG levels, in patients already on statin therapy, reduces the rate of major vascular events such as myocardial infarction and stroke (REDUCE-IT trial). We sought to assess how often patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (CS) have elevated TG levels and factors associated with high TG values. Methods: Patients enrolled in the Carotid Revascularization and Medical Management for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis Trial (CREST 2) were analyzed. Baseline lipid profiles were evaluated to determine high TG treatment eligibility as per the REDUCE-IT trial. We also evaluated baseline use of pharmacologic treatment for high TG levels. Demographic factors and baseline medical conditions were studied in relation to high (>150 mg/dl) TG values. Chi square and t tests were used to assess baseline factors and abnormal TG values. Results: As of August 10, 2020, 1655 of 1689 randomized patients (mean age 69.7 years, 61% men) had baseline lipid profiles suitable for analysis. Treatment eligibility according to REDUCE-IT (LDL 41-100 mg/dl, TG>150 mg/dl) was present in 21% (345) of subjects. In these patients, the median TG value was 205 (IQR 93) mg/dl. Fibrate medications were used at baseline in 4.5% of patients. Analysis of demographic and medical history factors and TG values greater than 150 mg/dl is found in the Table. There was significant positive correlation between baseline hemoglobin A1C and triglyceride values (p<0.0001) Conclusions: One in five patients in CREST 2 has TG values that potentially justify pharmacologic treatment. Elevated TG levels are most correlated with diabetes, hypertension, obesity, decreased physical activity, and heart disease. Clinicians should investigate treatment of elevated TG levels as a component of intensive medical therapy for stroke prevention.

Introduction: Previous analyses of randomized trials comparing carotid artery stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) have revealed varying sex-associated risk. To better understand sex as an effect modifier in the asymptomatic population, we combined the asymptomatic patients from CREST with the asymptomatic patients from ACT I. Methods: We analyzed data from 2544 subjects with ≥ 70% carotid stenosis randomized to CAS or CEA in addition to standard management of cardiovascular risk factors. CREST enrolled 1091 (548 CAS, 543 CEA) and ACT I enrolled 1453 (1089 CAS, 364 CEA) asymptomatic patients less than 80 years old (upper age eligibility in ACT I). We examined the impact of sex on risk within CAS-treated and CEA-treated patients using Kaplan-Meier methods. The pre-specified, primary composite endpoint was stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the periprocedural period (within 30 days of randomization) or any ipsilateral stroke within 4 years after randomization. Results: For patients assigned to CAS, there was no difference in risk between the sexes (female-to-male HR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.65 -- 1.66, P = 0.87). For patients assigned to CEA, the difference in risk detected was not significant (female-to-male HR = 1.43, 95% CI 0.77 - 2.67, P = 0.26). Conclusions: Sex-differences in risk were not significant for those assigned CAS nor those assigned CEA in this largest pooled analysis of asymptomatic patients comparing CAS to CEA.

Background and Purpose: The CREST2 trial (Carotid Revascularization and Medical Management for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis) is comparing intensive medical management (IMM) alone to IMM plus revascularization with carotid endarterectomy or transfemoral carotid artery stenting for preventing stroke or death within 44 days after randomization or ipsilateral ischemic stroke thereafter. There are extensive clinical trial data on outcomes after revascularization of asymptomatic carotid stenosis, but not for IMM. As such, the experimental treatment in CREST2 is IMM, which is described in this article. Methods: IMM consists of aspirin 325 mg/day and intensive risk factor management, primarily targeting systolic blood pressure <130 mm Hg (initially systolic blood pressure <140 mm Hg) and LDL (low-density lipoprotein) cholesterol <70 mg/dL. Secondary risk factor targets focus on tobacco smoking, non-HDL (high-density lipoprotein), HbA1c (hemoglobin A1c), physical activity, and weight. Risk factor management is performed by site personnel and a lifestyle coaching program delivered by telephone. We report interim risk factor data on 1618 patients at baseline and last follow-up through 24 months. Results: The mean baseline LDL of 80.5 mg/dL improved to 66.7 mg/dL. The mean baseline systolic blood pressure of 139.7 mm Hg improved to 130.3 mm Hg. The proportion of patients in-target improved from 43% to 61% for systolic blood pressure <130 mm Hg and from 45% to 67% for LDL<70 mg/dL (both changes P <0.001). Conclusions: The rigorous multimodal approach to intensive stroke risk factor management in CREST2 has resulted in significant improvements in risk factor control that will enable a comparison of cutting-edge medical care to revascularization in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02089217.