Bhatt, Deepak L

Abstract The persistent global rise in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) challenges the effectiveness of current risk factor-based algorithms in primary prevention. Most myocardial infarctions occur in individuals without prior symptoms or recognized standard modifiable risk factors, underscoring the need to improve risk stratification. Coronary CT imaging, including coronary artery calcium scoring (CACS) and coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), enables direct non-invasive visualization of coronary atherosclerosis, supporting a shift from population-based prevention towards personalized, disease-based risk assessment and targeted preventive treatment. CCTA provides comprehensive evaluation of plaque burden, composition, stenosis severity, and high-risk plaque (HRP) features, thereby refining risk stratification and guiding personalized treatment decisions. The presence and total burden of coronary atherosclerotic plaque are considered the primary CCTA-derived markers for guiding preventive therapy, while noncalcified plaque burden and HRP features may support treatment intensification. Advances in CT technology, including photon-counting CT, and the application of artificial intelligence-based tools may further refine risk assessment by enabling accurate and reproducible plaque quantification and characterization. Although no randomized trials have yet demonstrated that CCTA-based screening improves clinical outcomes in asymptomatic individuals compared with standard care, the same is true of traditional cardiovascular risk scores. Three large ongoing randomized trials are currently evaluating whether CCTA-guided, personalized prevention strategies can reduce ASCVD events. The results are eagerly awaited and may redefine the role of CCTA in asymptomatic individuals.

Background The mortality risk attributable to moderate aortic stenosis (AS) remains incompletely characterized and has historically been underestimated. We aim to evaluate the association between moderate AS and all‐cause death, comparing it with no/mild AS (in a general referral population and in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction). Methods and Results A systematic review and pooled meta‐analysis of Kaplan–Meier‐derived reconstructed time‐to‐event data of studies published by June 2023 was conducted to evaluate survival outcomes among patients with moderate AS in comparison with individuals with no/mild AS. Ten studies were included, encompassing a total of 409 680 patients (11 527 with moderate AS and 398 153 with no/mild AS). In the overall population, the 15‐year overall survival rate was 23.3% (95% CI, 19.1%–28.3%) in patients with moderate AS and 58.9% (95% CI, 58.1%–59.7%) in patients with no/mild aortic stenosis (hazard ratio [HR], 2.55 [95% CI, 2.46–2.64]; P <0.001). In patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the 10‐year overall survival rate was 15.5% (95% CI, 10.0%–24.0%) in patients with moderate AS and 37.3% (95% CI, 36.2%–38.5%) in patients with no/mild AS (HR, 1.83 [95% CI, 1.69–2.0]; P <0.001). In both populations (overall and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction), these differences correspond to significant lifetime loss associated with moderate AS during follow‐up (4.4 years, P <0.001; and 1.9 years, P <0.001, respectively). A consistent pattern of elevated mortality rate associated with moderate AS in sensitivity analyses of matched studies was observed. Conclusions Moderate AS was associated with higher risk of death and lifetime loss compared with patients with no/mild AS.

Objectives Compare the risk of extended major adverse cardiovascular (CV) event (MACE) composite outcomes and component events in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with tofacitinib versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in Oral Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial (ORAL) Surveillance. Methods Patients with RA aged ≥50 years and with ≥1 additional CV risk factor received tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg two times per day or TNFi. MACE (non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), non-fatal stroke or CV death (MACE-3)) was extended by sequential addition of CV events (hospitalisation for unstable angina (MACE-4), coronary revascularisation (MACE-5), transient ischaemic attack (MACE-6), peripheral vascular disease (MACE-7)), heart failure (HF) hospitalisation (MACE-8) and venous thromboembolism (VTE; (MACE-8 plus VTE)). HRs (tofacitinib vs TNFi) were evaluated for MACE and individual components. Results HRs for MACE-4 to MACE-8 with combined and individual tofacitinib doses versus TNFi were similar. Risk of MACE-8 plus VTE appeared similar with tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day versus TNFi (HR 1.12 (0.82 to 1.52)), but higher with tofacitinib 10 mg two times per day versus TNFi (HR 1.38 (1.02 to 1.85)). Risk of MI was higher with tofacitinib versus TNFi, but difference in risk of other individual CV events was not suggested. Across extended MACE definitions, risk appeared higher with tofacitinib versus TNFi in those with atherosclerotic CV disease or age ≥65 years. Conclusion In ORAL Surveillance, risk of composite CV endpoints combining all ischaemic CV events and HF did not appear different with tofacitinib versus TNFi. The totality of CV risk was higher with tofacitinib 10 mg two times per day versus TNFi, driven by an increase in VTE. Trial registration number NCT02092467.

Objective The ORAL Surveillance trial found a dose‐dependent increase in venous thromboembolism (VTE) and pulmonary embolism (PE) events with tofacitinib versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi). We aimed to assess VTE incidence over time and explore risk factors of VTE, including disease activity, in ORAL Surveillance. Methods Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) aged 50 years or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID) or TNFi. Post hoc, cumulative probabilities and incidence rates (patients with first events/100 patient‐years) by 6‐month intervals were estimated for adjudicated VTE, deep vein thrombosis, and PE. Cox regression models identified risk factors. Clinical Disease Activity Index leading up to the event was explored in patients with VTE. Results Cumulative probabilities for VTE and PE were higher with tofacitinib 10 mg BID, but not 5 mg BID, versus TNFi. Incidence rates were consistent across 6‐month intervals within treatments. Across treatments, risk factors for VTE included prior VTE, body mass index greater than or equal to 35 kg/m 2 , older age, and history of chronic lung disease. At the time of the event, most patients with VTE had active disease as defined by Clinical Disease Activity Index. Conclusion Incidences of VTE and PE were higher with tofacitinib (10 > 5 mg BID) versus TNFi and were generally consistent over time. Across treatments, VTE risk factors were aligned with previous studies in the general RA population. These data highlight the importance of assessing VTE risk factors, including age, body mass index, and VTE history, when considering initiation of tofacitinib or TNFi in patients with active RA.

Abstract Endpoint adjudication (EA) is a common feature of contemporary randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in cardiovascular medicine. Endpoint adjudication refers to a process wherein a group of expert reviewers, known as the clinical endpoint committee (CEC), verify potential endpoints identified by site investigators. Events that are determined by the CEC to meet pre-specified trial definitions are then utilized for analysis. The rationale behind the use of EA is that it may lessen the potential misclassification of clinical events, thereby reducing statistical noise and bias. However, it has been questioned whether this is universally true, especially given that EA significantly increases the time, effort, and resources required to conduct a trial. Herein, we compare the summary estimates obtained using adjudicated vs. non-adjudicated site designated endpoints in major cardiovascular RCTs in which both were reported. Based on these data, we lay out a framework to determine which trials may warrant EA and where it may be redundant. The value of EA is likely greater when cardiovascular trials have nuanced primary endpoints, endpoint definitions that align poorly with practice, sub-optimal data completeness, greater operator variability, and lack of blinding. EA may not be needed if the primary endpoint is all-cause death or all-cause hospitalization. In contrast, EA is likely merited for more nuanced endpoints such as myocardial infarction, bleeding, worsening heart failure as an outpatient, unstable angina, or transient ischaemic attack. A risk-based approach to adjudication can potentially allow compromise between costs and accuracy. This would involve adjudication of a small proportion of events, with further adjudication done if inconsistencies are detected.

Background: In patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), persistent inflammation and increasing disease activity are associated with increased risk of adverse events (AEs). Objectives: To assess relationships between RA disease activity and AEs of interest in patients treated with tofacitinib or tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi). Design: This was a post hoc analysis of a long-term, postauthorization safety endpoint trial of tofacitinib versus TNFi. Methods: In ORAL Surveillance, 4362 patients aged ⩾50 years with active RA despite methotrexate, and ⩾1 additional cardiovascular (CV) risk factor, were randomized 1:1:1 to tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily or TNFi for up to 72 months. Post hoc time-dependent multivariable Cox analysis evaluated the relationships between disease activity [Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI)], inflammation [C-reactive protein (CRP)], and AEs of interest. The AEs included major adverse CV events (MACE), malignancies excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC), venous thromboembolism (VTE), serious infections, herpes zoster (HZ), nonserious infections excluding HZ (NSI), and death. Results: Across treatments, risk for NSI was higher when patients had CDAI-defined active disease versus remission; MACE and VTE risks trended higher, but did not reach significance. Hazard ratios for MACE, malignancies excluding NMSC, VTE, infections, and death rose by 2–9% for each 5-mg/L increment in serum CRP. The interaction terms evaluating the impact of treatment assignment on the relationship between disease activity and AEs were all p > 0.05. Conclusion: In ORAL Surveillance, higher NSI risk was observed in the presence of active RA versus remission. The risk of MACE and VTE directionally increased in active disease versus remission, although statistical power was limited due to small event numbers in these categories. The relationship between active disease and AEs was not impacted by treatment with tofacitinib versus TNFi. Registration: NCT02092467.

Antiplatelet therapy is the mainstay of pharmacologic treatment to prevent thrombotic or ischemic events in patients with coronary artery disease treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and those treated medically for an acute coronary syndrome. The use of antiplatelet therapy comes at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding complications. Defining the optimal intensity of platelet inhibition according to the clinical presentation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and individual patient factors is a clinical challenge. Modulation of antiplatelet therapy is a medical action that is frequently performed to balance the risk of thrombotic or ischemic events and the risk of bleeding. This aim may be achieved by reducing (ie, de-escalation) or increasing (ie, escalation) the intensity of platelet inhibition by changing the type, dose, or number of antiplatelet drugs. Because de-escalation or escalation can be achieved in different ways, with a number of emerging approaches, confusion arises with terminologies that are often used interchangeably. To address this issue, this Academic Research Consortium collaboration provides an overview and definitions of different strategies of antiplatelet therapy modulation for patients with coronary artery disease, including but not limited to those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and consensus statements on standardized definitions.

Objective: Limited data exist around the receipt of palliative care (PC) in patients hospitalized with common chronic conditions. We studied the independent predictors, temporal trends in rates of PC utilization in patients hospitalized with acute exacerbation of common chronic diseases. Methods: Population-based cohort study of all hospitalizations with an acute exacerbation of heart disease (HD), cerebrovascular accident (CVA), cancer (CA), and chronic lower respiratory disease (CLRD). Patients aged ≥18 years or older between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2017, referred for inpatient PC were extracted from the National Inpatient Sample. Poisson regression analyses were used to estimate temporal trends. Results: Between 2004 and 2017, of 91,877,531 hospitalizations, 55.2%, 13.9%, 17.2%, and 13.8% hospitalizations were related to HD, CVA, CA, and CLRD, respectively. There was a temporal increase in the uptake of PC across all disease groups. Age-adjusted estimated rates of PC per 100,000 hospitalizations/year were highest for CA (2308 (95% CI 2249–2366) to 10,794 (95% CI 10,652–10,936)), whereas the CLRD cohort had the lowest rates of PC referrals (255 (95% CI 231–278) to 1882 (95% CI 1821–1943)) between 2004 and 2017, respectively. In the subgroup analysis of patients who died during hospitalization, the CVA group had the highest uptake of PC per 100,000 hospitalizations/year (4979 (95% CI 4918–5040)) followed by CA (4241 (95% CI 4189–4292)), HD (3250 (95% CI 3211–3289)) and CLRD (3248 (95% CI 3162–3405)). Conclusion: PC service utilization is increasing but remains disparate, particularly in patients that die during hospital admission from common chronic conditions. These findings highlight the need to develop a multidisciplinary, patient-centered approach to improve access to PC services in these patients.