Comparative Reductions in Investigator-Reported and Adjudicated Ischemic Events in REDUCE-IT

Omega-3 fatty acids for cardiovascular event lowering

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is the main target for therapeutics aimed at reducing the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and downstream cardiovascular (CV) events. However, multiple studies have demonstrated that high-risk patient populations harbour residual risk despite effective LDL-C lowering. While data support the causal relationship between triglycerides and ASCVD risk, triglyceride-lowering therapies such as omega-3 fatty acids have shown mixed results in CV outcomes trials. Notably, icosapent ethyl, a purified formulation of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), has garnered compelling evidence in lowering residual CV risk in patients with hypertriglyceridaemia and treated with statins. In this review, we summarize studies that have investigated omega-3-fatty acids for CV event lowering and discuss the clinical implementation of these agents based on trial data and guidelines.

Invasive Treatment Strategy in Adults With Frailty and Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The MOSCA-FRAIL randomized clinical trial compared invasive and conservative treatment strategies in patients with frailty with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). It showed no differences in the number of days alive and out of the hospital at 1 year.

Objective

To assess the outcomes of the MOSCA-FRAIL trial during extended follow-up.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The MOSCA-FRAIL randomized clinical trial was conducted at 13 hospitals in Spain between July 7, 2017, and January 9, 2021, and included 167 adults (aged ≥70 years) with frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale score ≥4) and NSTEMI. In this preplanned secondary analysis, follow-up was extended to January 31, 2023. Data analysis was performed from April 5 to 29, 2023, using the intention-to-treat principle.

Interventions

Patients were randomized to a routine invasive (coronary angiography and revascularization if feasible [n = 84]) or a conservative (medical treatment with coronary angiography only if recurrent ischemia [n = 83]) strategy.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary end point was the difference in restricted mean survival time (RMST). Secondary end points included readmissions for any cause, considering recurrent readmissions.

Results

Among the 167 patients included in the analysis, the mean (SD) age was 86 (5) years; 79 (47.3%) were men and 88 (52.7%) were women. A total of 93 deaths and 367 readmissions accrued. The RMST for all-cause death over the entire follow-up was 3.13 (95% CI, 2.72-3.60) years in the invasive and 3.06 (95% CI, 2.84-3.32) years in the conservative treatment groups. The RMST analysis showed inconclusive differences in survival time (invasive minus conservative difference, 28 [95% CI, -188 to 230] days). Patients under invasive treatment tended to have shorter survival in the first year (-28 [95% CI, -63 to 7] days), which improved after the first year (192 [95% CI, 90-230] days). Kaplan-Meier mortality curves intersected, displaying higher mortality to 1 year in the invasive group that shifted to a late benefit (landmark analysis hazard ratio, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.33-0.99]; P = .045). Early harm was more evident in the subgroup with a Clinical Frailty Scale score greater than 4. No differences were found for the secondary end points.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this extended follow-up of a randomized clinical trial of patients with frailty and NSTEMI, an invasive treatment strategy did not improve outcomes at a median follow-up of 1113 (IQR, 443-1441) days. However, a differential distribution of deaths was observed, with early harm followed by later benefit. The phenomenon of depletion of susceptible patients may be responsible for this behavior.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03208153.

Fish and Omega-3 Fatty Acids: Sex and Racial Differences in Cardiovascular Outcomes and Cognitive Function

Both cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cognitive decline are common features of aging. One in 5 deaths is cardiac for both men and women in the United States, and an estimated 50 million are currently living with dementia worldwide. In this review, we summarize sex and racial differences in the role of fish and its very long chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), in preventing CVD events and cognitive decline. In prospective studies, women with higher nonfried and fatty fish intake and women and Black individuals with higher plasma levels of EPA and DHA had a lower risk of CVD. In randomized controlled trials of EPA and DHA supplementation in primary CVD prevention, Black subjects benefited in a secondary outcome. In secondary CVD prevention, both men and women benefited, and Asians benefited as a prespecified subgroup. Fish and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids are associated with prevention of cognitive decline in prospective studies. In randomized controlled trials of EPA and DHA supplementation, women have cognitive benefit. DHA seems more beneficial than EPA, and supplementation is more beneficial when started before cognitive decline. Although studies in women and racial groups are limited, life-long intake of nonfried and fatty fish lowers the risk of CVD and cognitive decline, and randomized controlled trials also show the benefit of EPA and DHA supplementation. These findings should be factored into recommendations for future research and clinical recommendations as dietary modalities could be cost-effective for disease prevention.

Endpoint adjudication in cardiovascular clinical trials

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.

Reliability of major bleeding events in UK routine data versus clinical trial adjudicated follow-up data

OBJECTIVE

To assess how reliable UK routine data are for ascertaining major bleeding events compared with adjudicated follow-up.

METHODS

The ASCEND (A Study of Cardiovascular Events iN Diabetes) primary prevention trial randomised 15 480 UK people with diabetes to aspirin versus matching placebo. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding (including intracranial haemorrhage, sight-threatening eye bleeding, serious gastrointestinal bleeding and other major bleeding (epistaxis, haemoptysis, haematuria, vaginal and other bleeding)) ascertained by direct-participant mail-based follow-up, with >90% of outcomes undergoing adjudication. Nearly all participants were linked to routinely collected hospitalisation and death data (ie, routine data). An algorithm categorised bleeding events from routine data as major/minor. Kappa statistics were used to assess agreement between data sources, and randomised comparisons were re-run using routine data.

RESULTS

When adjudicated follow-up and routine data were compared, there was agreement for 318 major bleeding events, with routine data identifying 281 additional-potential events, and not identifying 241 participant-reported events (kappa 0.53, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.57). Repeating ASCEND's randomised comparisons using routine data only found estimated relative and absolute effects of allocation to aspirin versus placebo on major bleeding similar to adjudicated follow-up (adjudicated follow-up: aspirin 314 (4.1%) vs placebo 245 (3.2%); rate ratio (RR) 1.29, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.52; absolute excess +6.3/5000 person-years (mean SE±2.1); vs routine data: 327 (4.2%) vs 272 (3.5%); RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.41; absolute excess +5.0/5000 (±2.2)).

CONCLUSIONS

Analyses of the ASCEND randomised trial found that major bleeding events ascertained via UK routine data sources provided relative and absolute treatment effects similar to adjudicated follow-up.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN60635500; NCT00135226.

A Critical Review of Icosapent Ethyl in Cardiovascular Risk Reduction

Icosapent ethyl (IPE) was the first fish oil product the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved to reduce the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in adults. IPE is an esterified version of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and acts as a prodrug in the body to exert its effects. IPE affects the body primarily through triglyceride (TG) reduction and was initially indicated for hypertriglyceridemia in addition to statin therapy or for patients with statin intolerances. Various studies have investigated this agent, and multiple subanalyses have been conducted since the FDA approval. These subanalyses have assessed factors such as sex, statin therapy, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels (hs-CRP), and various inflammatory biomarkers in groups of patients taking IPE. This article aims to provide a critical review of the clinical data available regarding cardiovascular benefits of IPE in patients with ASCVD and its value as a treatment option for patients with elevated TG levels.

Effect of Canagliflozin on Heart Failure Hospitalization in Diabetes According to Baseline Heart Failure Risk

BACKGROUND

In the CANVAS (Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study) program, canagliflozin reduced the risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalization among individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate heterogeneity in absolute and relative treatment effects of canagliflozin on HF hospitalization according to baseline HF risk as assessed by diabetes-specific HF risk scores (WATCH-DM [Weight (body mass index), Age, hyperTension, Creatinine, HDL-C, Diabetes control (fasting plasma glucose) and QRS Duration, MI and CABG] and TRS-HF_DM [TIMI Risk Score for HF in Diabetes]).

METHODS

Participants in the CANVAS trial were categorized into low, medium, and high risk for HF using the WATCH-DM score (for participants without prevalent HF) and the TRS-HF_DM score (for all participants). The outcome of interest was time to first HF hospitalization. The treatment effect of canagliflozin vs placebo for HF hospitalization was compared across risk strata.

RESULTS

Among 10,137 participants with available HF data, 1,446 (14.3%) had HF at baseline. Among participants without baseline HF, WATCH-DM risk category did not modify the treatment effect of canagliflozin (vs placebo) on HF hospitalization (P interaction = 0.56). However, the absolute and relative risk reduction with canagliflozin was numerically greater in the high-risk group (cumulative incidence, canagliflozin vs placebo: 8.1% vs 12.7%; HR: 0.62 [95% CI: 0.37-0.93]; P = 0.03; number needed to treat: 22) than in the low- and intermediate-risk groups. When overall study participants were categorized according to the TRS-HF_DM score, a statistically significant difference in the treatment effect of canagliflozin across risk strata was observed (P interaction = 0.04). Canagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of HF hospitalization by 39% in the high-risk group (HR: 0.61 [95% CI: 0.48-0.78]; P < 0.001; number needed to treat: 20) but not in the intermediate- or low-risk groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among participants with T2DM, the WATCH-DM and TRS-HF_DM can reliably identify those at high risk for HF hospitalization and most likely to benefit from canagliflozin.

Cardiovascular Benefits of Icosapent Ethyl in Patients With and Without Atrial Fibrillation in REDUCE-IT

Background In REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events With Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial), icosapent ethyl (IPE) versus placebo) reduced cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina requiring hospitalization, but was associated with increased atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter (AF) hospitalization (3.1% IPE versus 2.1% placebo; P=0.004). Methods and Results We performed post hoc efficacy and safety analyses of patients with or without prior AF (before randomization) and with or without in-study time-varying AF hospitalization to assess relationships of IPE (versus placebo) and outcomes. In-study AF hospitalization event rates were higher in patients with prior AF (12.5% versus 6.3%, IPE versus placebo; P=0.007) versus without prior AF (2.2% versus 1.6%, IPE versus placebo; P=0.09). Serious bleeding rates trended higher in patients with (7.3% versus 6.0%, IPE versus placebo; P=0.59) versus without prior AF (2.3% versus 1.7%, IPE versus placebo; P=0.08). With IPE, serious bleeding trended higher regardless of prior AF (interaction P value [Pint]=0.61) or postrandomization AF hospitalization (Pint=0.66). Patients with prior AF (n=751, 9.2%) versus without prior AF (n=7428, 90.8%) had similar relative risk reductions of the primary composite and key secondary composite end points with IPE versus placebo (Pint=0.37 and Pint=0.55, respectively). Conclusions In REDUCE-IT, in-study AF hospitalization rates were higher in patients with prior AF especially in those randomized to IPE. Although serious bleeding trended higher in those randomized to IPE versus placebo over the course of the study, serious bleeding was not different regardless of prior AF or in-study AF hospitalization. Patients with prior AF or in-study AF hospitalization had consistent relative risk reductions across primary, key secondary, and stroke end points with IPE. Registration URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01492361; Unique Identifier: NCT01492361.

Inclisiran and cardiovascular events: a patient-level analysis of phase III trials

BACKGROUND

Inclisiran, an siRNA administered twice-yearly, significantly reduced LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) in Phase III trials. Whether lowering LDL-C with inclisiran translates into a lower risk of cardiovascular (CV) events is not yet established.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patient-level, pooled analysis of ORION-9, -10 and -11, included patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia, atherosclerotic CV disease (ASCVD), or ASCVD risk equivalent on maximally tolerated statin-therapy, randomized 1:1 to receive 284 mg inclisiran or placebo on Days 1, 90, and 6-monthly thereafter for 18 months. Prespecified exploratory endpoint of major cardiovascular events (MACEs) included non-adjudicated CV death, cardiac arrest, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), and fatal and non-fatal stroke, evaluated as part of safety assessments using a standard Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities basket. Although not prespecified, total fatal and non-fatal MI, and stroke were also evaluated. Mean LDL-C at baseline was 2.88 mmol/L. At Day 90, the placebo-corrected percentage reduction in LDL-C with inclisiran was 50.6%, corresponding to an absolute reduction of 1.37 mmol/L (both P < 0.0001). Among 3655 patients over 18 months, 303 (8.3%) experienced MACE, including 74 (2.0%) fatal and non-fatal MIs, and 28 (0.8%) fatal and non-fatal strokes. Inclisiran significantly reduced composite MACE [OR (95% CI): 0.74 (0.58-0.94)], but not fatal and non-fatal MIs [OR (95% CI): 0.80 (0.50-1.27)] or fatal and non-fatal stroke [OR (95% CI): 0.86 (0.41-1.81)].

CONCLUSION

This analysis offers early insights into the potential CV benefits of lowering LDL-C with inclisiran and suggests potential benefits for MACE reduction. These findings await confirmation in the larger CV outcomes trials of longer duration.

Impact of acute coronary syndrome on clinical outcomes after revascularization with the dual-therapy CD34 antibody-covered sirolimus-eluting Combo stent and the sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of the dual-therapy CD34 antibody-covered sirolimus-eluting Combo stent (DTS) and the sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent (O-SES) in patients with and without acute coronary syndrome (ACS) included in the SORT OUT X study.

BACKGROUND

The incidence of target lesion failure (TLF) after treatment with modern drug-eluting stents has been reported to be significantly higher in patients with ACS when compared to patients without ACS. Whether the results from the SORT OUT X study apply to patients with and without ACS remains unknown.

METHODS

In total, 3146 patients were randomized to stent implantation with DTS (n = 1578; ACS: n = 856) or O-SES (n = 1568; ACS: n = 854). The primary end point, TLF, was a composite of cardiac death, target-lesion myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR) within 1 year.

RESULTS

At 1 year, the rate of TLF was higher in the DTS group compared to the O-SES group, both among patients with ACS (6.7% vs. 4.1%; incidence rate ratio: 1.65 [95% confidence interval, CI: 1.08-2.52]) and without ACS (6.0% vs. 3.2%; incidence rate ratio: 1.88 [95% CI: 1.13-3.14]). The differences were mainly explained by higher rates of TLR, whereas rates of cardiac death and target lesion MI did not differ significantly between the two stent groups in patients with or without ACS CONCLUSION: Compared to the O-SES, the DTS was associated with a higher risk of TLF at 12 months in patients with and without ACS. The differences were mainly explained by higher rates of TLR.

Emphasis on Icosapent Ethyl for Cardiovascular Risk Reduction: A Systematic Review

Despite the widespread use of lipid-lowering agents such as statins, cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of mortality worldwide. Icosapent ethyl (IPE) (Vascepa), an ethyl ester of the omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), has gained widespread popularity as an adjunctive agent that targets multiple and additional mechanisms linked to the incidence of cardiovascular (CV) events and the causative pathway of atherosclerosis. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 standards were used to conduct this systematic review. In this review, we assessed various studies from PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), and Google Scholar to evaluate the mechanisms of action and beneficial effects of IPE in the reduction of CVD outcomes. The Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial (REDUCE-IT) has demonstrated a significant reduction in CV mortality with 4 g/day IPE as compared to placebo. All other trials and observational studies have supported the role of Vascepa in hypertriglyceridemia and CV risk reduction. In conclusion, the use of IPE has been shown to significantly reduce triglyceride levels and reduce CV risks in patients receiving optimal statin therapy.

Empagliflozin in patients post myocardial infarction rationale and design of the EMPACT-MI trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) are at risk for developing heart failure (HF) and subsequently are at an increased risk of mortality. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors have been proven to improve outcomes in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, and, in the case of empagliflozin, in HF with preserved ejection fraction even without diabetes, but their efficacy and safety in the post-MI population has not yet been evaluated.

METHODS

The EMPACT-MI trial will evaluate the safety and efficacy of empagliflozin compared with placebo in patients hospitalized for MI with or at high risk of new onset HF, in addition to standard care. EMPACT-MI is a streamlined, multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial randomizing 5,000 participants at approximately 480 centers in 22 countries. Eligible patients presenting with spontaneous MI must have new signs or symptoms of pulmonary congestion requiring treatment or new left ventricular dysfunction (LVEF<45%), and at least 1 additional risk factor for development of future HF. Eligible and consenting patients are randomized to empagliflozin 10mg or placebo daily in addition to standard of care within 14 days of hospital admission for MI. The primary composite end point is time to first hospitalization for HF or all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

EMPACT-MI will inform clinical practice regarding the role of empagliflozin in patients after an MI with high-risk for the development of future HF and mortality.

Comparison of Investigator-Reported vs Centrally Adjudicated Major Adverse Cardiac Events: A Secondary Analysis of the COMPASS Trial

IMPORTANCE

In the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial, there was a significant reduction in the adjudicated primary outcome among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease randomized to dual pathway inhibition (rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg daily) vs aspirin monotherapy, but not with rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily vs aspirin monotherapy. Whether the results are similar without adjudication is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the impact of dual pathway inhibition (with rivaroxaban plus aspirin) or rivaroxaban monotherapy compared with aspirin monotherapy on investigator-reported CV events and to understand the extent of concordance between investigator-reported and centrally adjudicated clinical events.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This is a secondary analysis of the COMPASS trial, an international, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized clinical trial with a 3-by-2 partial factorial design that evaluated participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease receiving rivaroxaban plus aspirin, rivaroxaban monotherapy, or aspirin monotherapy. End points were collected by blinded site investigators and adjudicated by a blinded clinical end point committee. Data were analyzed from March 2013 through February 2017.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants received dual inhibition pathway (2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily plus 100 mg aspirin once daily), rivaroxaban monotherapy (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin monotherapy (100 mg once daily).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI). Adjudicated and investigator-reported end points were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 27 395 patients (mean [SD] age, 68.2 [7.9] years; 78.0% men) were assessed, including 9152 patients randomized to dual pathway inhibition, 9117 patients randomized to rivaroxaban monotherapy, and 9126 patients randomized to aspirin monotherapy. Adjudication reduced the number of events by 10% to 15% for most end points. Among investigator-reported end points, dual pathway inhibition significantly reduced the rate of the primary efficacy outcome compared with aspirin alone (411 patients [4.5%] vs 542 patients [5.9%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.66-0.85]; P < .001), with similar reduction in adjudicated end points, (379 patients [4.1%] vs 496 patients [5.4%]; HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.66-0.86]; P < .001). Likewise, effects on ischemic end points were highly concordant (κ statistic = 0.94 [95% CI, 0.93-0.95] for the primary composite end point). Unlike with adjudicated outcomes, there was a significant reduction in the primary end point with rivaroxaban monotherapy vs aspirin monotherapy using investigator-reported events (477 patients [5.2%] vs 542 patients [5.9%]; HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.78-0.99]; P = .04) compared with adjudicated events (448 patients [4.9%] vs 496 patients [5.4%]; HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.79-1.03]; P = .12).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This secondary analysis of the COMPASS trial found that whether assessed by blinded site investigators or adjudicators, dual pathway inhibition significantly reduced CV events among patients with stable atherosclerotic disease compared with aspirin plus placebo. These findings suggest that using investigator-reported events in blinded clinical trials may be a more efficient alternative to adjudication.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01776424.

Management of Mild-to-Moderate Hypertriglyceridemia

OBJECTIVE

Hypertriglyceridemia is highly prevalent globally and its prevalence is rising with international increases in the incidence of obesity and diabetes. This review examines current management and future therapies METHODS: For this review, hypertriglyceridemia is defined as mild-to-moderate triglyceride elevation, a fasting or non-fasting triglyceride level >150 mg/dL and <500 mg/dL. We reviewed scientific studies published over the last 30 years and current professional society recommendations regarding evaluation and treatment of hypertriglyceridemia.

RESULTS

Genetics, lifestyle, and other environmental factors impact triglyceride levels. In adults with mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia, clinicians should routinely assess and treat secondary treatable causes (diet, physical activity, obesity, metabolic syndrome, and reduction or cessation of medications that elevate triglyceride levels). Since atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk is the primary clinical concern, statins are usually first-line treatment. Patients with triglyceride levels between >150 mg/dL and <500 mg/dL whose LDL-C is treated adequately with statins (at "maximally tolerated" doses, per some statements) and have either prior cardiovascular disease or diabetes mellitus plus at least 2 additional cardiovascular disease risk factors should be considered for added icosapent ethyl treatment to further reduce their cardiovascular disease risk. Fibrates, niacin, and other approved agents or agents under development are also reviewed in detail.

CONCLUSION

The treatment paradigm for mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia is changing based on data from recent clinical trials. Recent trials suggest that the addition of icosapent ethyl to background statin therapy may further reduce ASCVD risk in patients with moderate HTG, though a particular TG goal has not been identified.

Lipid-Modifying Therapies and Stroke Prevention

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We reviewed lipid-modifying therapies and the risk of stroke and other cerebrovascular outcomes, with a focus on newer therapies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Statins and ezetimibe reduce ischemic stroke risk without increasing hemorrhagic stroke risk. Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors similarly reduce ischemic stroke risk in statin-treated patients with atherosclerosis without increasing hemorrhagic stroke, even with very low achieved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. Icosapent ethyl reduces the risk of total and first ischemic stroke in patients with established cardiovascular disease or diabetes mellitus. Clinical outcome trials are underway for newer lipid-modifying agents, including inclisiran, bempedoic acid, and pemafibrate. New biologic agents including evinacumab, pelacarsen, olpasiran, and SLN360 are also discussed. In addition to statins and ezetimibe, PCSK9 inhibitors and icosapent ethyl reduce the risk of ischemic stroke without increasing the risk of hemorrhagic stroke. These therapies dramatically expand options for reducing stroke in high-risk settings.

Prevention of Cardiovascular Events and Mortality With Icosapent Ethyl in Patients With Prior Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

REDUCE-IT was a double-blind trial that randomized 8,179 statin-treated patients with controlled low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and moderately elevated triglycerides to icosapent ethyl (IPE) or placebo. There was a significant reduction in the primary endpoint, including death from cardiovascular (CV) causes. The specific impact of IPE among patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI) was unknown.

OBJECTIVES

Our goal was to examine the benefit of IPE on ischemic events among patients with prior MI in REDUCE-IT.

METHODS

We performed post hoc analyses of patients with prior MI. The primary endpoint was CV death, MI, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina. The key secondary endpoint was CV death, MI, or stroke.

RESULTS

A total of 3,693 patients had a history of prior MI. The primary endpoint was reduced from 26.1% to 20.2% with IPE vs placebo; HR: 0.74 (95% CI: 0.65-0.85; P = 0.00001). The key secondary endpoint was reduced from 18.0% to 13.3%; HR: 0.71 (95% CI: 0.61-0.84; P = 0.00006). There was also a significant 35% relative risk reduction in total ischemic events (P = 0.0000001), a 34% reduction in MI (P = 0.00009), a 30% reduction in CV death (P = 0.01), and a 20% lower rate of all-cause mortality (P = 0.054), although there was a slight increase in atrial fibrillation. Sudden cardiac death and cardiac arrest were also significantly reduced by 40% and 56%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a history of prior MI in REDUCE-IT treated with IPE demonstrated large and significant relative and absolute risk reductions in ischemic events, including CV death. (A Study of AMR101 to Evaluate Its Ability to Reduce Cardiovascular Events in High Risk Patients With Hypertriglyceridemia and on Statin. The Primary Objective is to Evaluate the Effect of 4 g/Day AMR101 for Preventing the Occurrence of a First Major Cardiovascular Event. [REDUCE-IT]; NCT01492361).

Impact of diabetes on clinical outcomes after revascularization with the dual therapy CD34 antibody-covered sirolimus-eluting Combo stent and the sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of the dual therapy CD34 antibody-covered sirolimus-eluting Combo stent (DTS) and the sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent (SES) in patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM) included in the Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials with Clinical Outcome (SORT OUT) X study.

BACKGROUND

The incidence of target lesion failure (TLF) after treatment with modern drug-eluting stents has been reported to be significantly higher in patients with DM when compared to patients without DM. Thus, whether the results from the SORT OUT X study apply to patients with and without DM remains unknown.

METHODS

In total 3146 patients were randomized to stent implantation with DTS (n = 1578; DM: n = 279) or SES (n = 1568; DM: n = 271). The primary end point, TLF, was a composite of cardiac death, target-lesion myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR) within 1 year.

RESULTS

At 1 year, the rate of TLF was increased in the DTS group compared to the SES group, both among patients with DM (9.3% vs. 4.8%; risk difference: 4.5%; incidence rate ratio: 1.99, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-3.90) and without DM (5.7% vs. 3.5%; incidence rate ratio: 1.67, 95% CI: 1.15-2.42). The differences were mainly explained by higher rates of TLR.

CONCLUSION

Compared to the SES, the DTS was associated with an increased risk of TLF at 12 months in patients with and without DM. The differences were mainly explained by higher rates of TLR, whereas rates of cardiac death and target lesion MI did not differ significantly between the two stent groups in patients with or without DM.

The Potential Population Health Impact of Treating REDUCE-IT eligible US adults with Icosapent Ethyl

•

An estimated 3.6 million US adults are REDUCE-IT eligible.

•

An estimated 212,000 ASCVD events over five years can be prevented with icosapent ethyl therapy.

•

The estimated annual cost of treating all eligible US adults with icosapent ethyl is $5.5 billion.

•

An estimated $1.8 billion could be saved annually from ASCVD events prevented.

Objective

To explore the population health impact of treating all US adults eligible for the Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl–Intervention Trial (REDUCE-IT) with icosapent ethyl (IPE), we estimated (1) the number of ASCVD events and healthcare costs that could be prevented; and (2) medication costs.

Methods

We derived REDUCE-IT eligible cohorts in (1) the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) 2009-2014 and (2) the Optum Research Database (ORD). Population sizes were obtained from NHANES and observed first event rates (composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, unstable angina requiring hospitalization, or coronary revascularization) were estimated from the ORD. Hazard ratios from REDUCE-IT USA estimated events prevented with IPE therapy. The National Inpatient Sample estimated event costs (facility and professional) and daily IPE treatment cost was approximated at $4.59.

Results

We estimate 3.6 million US adults to be REDUCE-IT eligible, and the observed five-year first event rate without IPE of 19.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 16.6%-19.5%) could be lowered to 13.1% (95% CI 12.8%-13.5%) with five years of IPE treatment, preventing 212,000 (uncertainty range 163,000-262,000) events. We projected the annual IPE treatment cost for all eligible persons to be $6.0 billion (95% CI $4.7-$7.5 billion), but saving $1.8 billion annually due to first events prevented (net annual cost $4.3 billion). The total five-year event rate (first and recurrent) could be reduced from 42.5% (95% CI 39.6%-45.4%) to 28.9% (95% CI 26.9-30.9%) with five years of IPE therapy, preventing 490,000 (uncertainty range 370,000-609,000) events (net annual cost $2.6 billion).

Conclusions

Treating all REDUCE-IT eligible US adults has substantial medication costs but could prevent a substantial number of ASCVD events and associated direct costs. Indirect cost savings by preventing events could outweigh much of the incurred direct costs.

Cost-effectiveness of Icosapent Ethyl for High-risk Patients With Hypertriglyceridemia Despite Statin Treatment

Importance

The Reduction of Cardiovascular Events With Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial (REDUCE-IT) demonstrated the efficacy of icosapent ethyl (IPE) for high-risk patients with hypertriglyceridemia and known cardiovascular disease or diabetes and at least 1 other risk factor who were treated with statins.

Objective

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of IPE compared with standard care for high-risk patients with hypertriglyceridemia despite statin treatment.

Design, Setting, and Participants

An in-trial cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using patient-level study data from REDUCE-IT, and a lifetime analysis was performed using a microsimulation model and data from published literature. The study included 8179 patients with hypertriglyceridemia despite stable statin therapy recruited between November 21, 2011, and May 31, 2018. Analyses were performed from a US health care sector perspective. Statistical analysis was performed from March 1, 2018, to October 31, 2021.

Interventions

Patients were randomly assigned to IPE, 4 g/d, or placebo and were followed up for a median of 4.9 years (IQR, 3.5-5.3 years). The cost of IPE was $4.16 per day after rebates using SSR Health net cost (SSR cost) and $9.28 per day with wholesale acquisition cost (WAC).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Main outcomes were incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total direct health care costs (2019 US dollars), and cost-effectiveness.

Results

A total of 4089 patients (2927 men [71.6%]; median age, 64.0 years [IQR, 57.0-69.0 years]) were randomly assigned to receive IPE, and 4090 patients (2895 men [70.8%]; median age, 64.0 years [IQR, 57.0-69.0 years]) were randomly assigned to receive standard care. Treatment with IPE yielded more QALYs than standard care both in trial (3.34 vs 3.27; mean difference, 0.07 [95% CI, 0.01-0.12]) and over a lifetime projection (10.59 vs 10.35; mean difference, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.15-0.33]). In-trial, total health care costs were higher with IPE using either SSR cost ($18 786) or WAC ($24 544) than with standard care ($17 273; mean difference from SSR cost, $1513 [95% CI, $155-$2870]; mean difference from WAC, $7271 [95% CI, $5911-$8630]). Icosapent ethyl cost $22 311 per QALY gained using SSR cost and $107 218 per QALY gained using WAC. Over a lifetime, IPE was projected to be cost saving when using SSR cost ($195 276) compared with standard care ($197 064; mean difference, -$1788 [95% CI, -$9735 to $6159]) but to have higher costs when using WAC ($202 830) compared with standard care (mean difference, $5766 [95% CI, $1094-$10 438]). Compared with standard care, IPE had a 58.4% lifetime probability of costing less and being more effective when using SSR cost and an 89.4% probability of costing less than $50 000 per QALY gained when using SSR cost and a 72.5% probability of costing less than $50 000 per QALY gained when using WAC.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study suggests that, both in-trial and over the lifetime, IPE offers better cardiovascular outcomes than standard care in REDUCE-IT participants at common willingness-to-pay thresholds.