Search

BACKGROUND Lipoprotein(a) is a presumed risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Olpasiran is a small interfering RNA that reduces lipoprotein(a) synthesis in the liver. METHODS We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding trial involving patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and a lipoprotein(a) concentration of more than 150 nmol per liter. Patients were randomly assigned to receive one of four doses of olpasiran (10 mg every 12 weeks, 75 mg every 12 weeks, 225 mg every 12 weeks, or 225 mg every 24 weeks) or matching placebo, administered subcutaneously. The primary end point was the percent change in the lipoprotein(a) concentration from baseline to week 36 (reported as the placebo-adjusted mean percent change). Safety was also assessed. RESULTS Among the 281 enrolled patients, the median concentration of lipoprotein(a) at baseline was 260.3 nmol per liter, and the median concentration of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was 67.5 mg per deciliter. At baseline, 88% of the patients were taking statin therapy, 52% were taking ezetimibe, and 23% were taking a proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor. At 36 weeks, the lipoprotein(a) concentration had increased by a mean of 3.6% in the placebo group, whereas olpasiran therapy had significantly and substantially reduced the lipoprotein(a) concentration in a dose-dependent manner, resulting in placebo-adjusted mean percent changes of -70.5% with the 10-mg dose, -97.4% with the 75-mg dose, -101.1% with the 225-mg dose administered every 12 weeks, and -100.5% with the 225-mg dose administered every 24 weeks (P

BACKGROUND Data support lipoprotein(a) (Lp[Lp(a)]) being a risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Olpasiran is a small interfering RNA molecule that markedly reduces Lp(a) production in hepatocytes. STUDY DESIGN The Olpasiran trials of Cardiovascular Events And lipoproteiN(a) reduction-DOSE finding study is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-finding study in 281 subjects with established ASCVD and Lp(a) > 150 nmol/L. Patients were randomly allocated to one of 4 active subcutaneous doses of olpasiran (10 mg q12 weeks, 75 mg q12 weeks, 225 mg q 12 weeks, or 225 mg q24 weeks) or matched placebo. The primary objective is to evaluate the effects of olpasiran dosed every 12 weeks compared with placebo on the percent change in Lp(a) from baseline at 36 weeks. Enrollment is now complete and follow-up is ongoing. CONCLUSIONS OCEAN(a)-DOSE trial is assessing the Lp(a)-lowering efficacy and safety of olpasiran. These data will be used to determine optimal dosing and design for a cardiovascular outcomes trial.

Aims Some trials have reported diminished efficacy for statins in the elderly, and in women compared with men. We examined the efficacy and safety of evolocumab by patient age and sex in the FOURIER trial, the first major cardiovascular outcome trial of a PCSK9 inhibitor. Methods and results FOURIER was a randomised, double blind trial, comparing evolocumab with placebo in 27,564 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease receiving statin therapy (median follow-up 2.2 years). The primary endpoint was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalisation for unstable angina or coronary revascularisation. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the efficacy of evolocumab versus placebo stratified by quartiles of patient age and by sex. There were small variations in the cardiovascular event rate across the age range (for the primary endpoint, Kaplan–Meier at 3 years 15.6%, >69 years, vs. 15.1%, ≤56 years, P = 0.45); however, the relative efficacy of evolocumab was consistent regardless of patient age (for the primary endpoint (Q1 hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval) 0.83, 0.72–0.96, Q2 0.88, 0.76–1.01, Q3 0.82, 0.71–0.95, Q4 0.86, 0.74–1.00; Pinteraction = 0.91), and the key secondary endpoint (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke) (Q1 0.74 (0.61–0.89), Q2 0.83 (0.69–1.00), Q3 0.78 (0.65–0.94), Q4 0.82 (0.69–0.98)); Pinteraction = 0.81). Women had a lower primary endpoint rate than men (Kaplan–Meier at 3 years 12.5 vs. 15.3%, respectively, P Conclusions The efficacy and safety of evolocumab are similar throughout a broad range of ages and in both men and women.

Lipoprotein apheresis (LA) can effectively lower lipoproteins but is an invasive procedure.The objective of this study was to evaluate whether evolocumab can reduce LA requirement in patients undergoing chronic LA.Patients on regular weekly or every-2-week LA and moderate- to high-intensity statin (if tolerated) with pre-LA low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels ≥2.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) to ≤4.9 mmol/L (190 mg/dL) were randomized to continue the same LA frequency, or discontinue LA and receive evolocumab 140 mg every-2-weeks subcutaneously for 6 weeks. At week 6, all patients received only open-label evolocumab for 18 weeks. The primary endpoint was LA avoidance at the end of 6 weeks based on achieving pre-LA LDL-C2.6 mmol/L at week 4.Thirty-nine patients (mean [SD] age 62 [10] years, 59% male, 82% with familial hypercholesterolemia) were randomized (evolocumab, n = 19; LA, n = 20). At the end of 6 weeks, more patients receiving evolocumab avoided LA than those receiving LA (84% vs 10%; treatment difference, 74% [95% CI: 45, 87]; P .0001). Thirty patients (77%) did not require LA at 24 weeks. Evolocumab reduced pre-LA LDL-C by 50% from the baseline to week 4 compared with a 3% increase in the LA arm. Pre-LA LDL-C1.8 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) was achieved by 10 patients (53%) receiving evolocumab and none receiving LA (week 4). Safety was comparable between arms.Evolocumab treatment significantly reduced LA requirement in patients undergoing chronic LA. In addition,50% of patients achieved LDL-C1.8 mmol/L on evolocumab alone, demonstrating that in patients with pre-LA LDL-C ≤4.9 mmol/L, evolocumab may replace LA.

Background Omecamtiv mecarbil (OM) is a selective cardiac myosin activator that increases myocardial function in healthy volunteers and in patients with chronic heart failure. Objectives This study evaluated the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, tolerability, safety, and efficacy of OM in patients with acute heart failure (AHF). Methods Patients admitted for AHF with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%, dyspnea, and elevated plasma concentrations of natriuretic peptides were randomized to receive a double-blind, 48-h intravenous infusion of placebo or OM in 3 sequential, escalating-dose cohorts. Results In 606 patients, OM did not improve the primary endpoint of dyspnea relief (3 OM dose groups and pooled placebo: placebo, 41%; OM cohort 1, 42%; cohort 2, 47%; cohort 3, 51%; p = 0.33) or any of the secondary outcomes studied. In supplemental, pre-specified analyses, OM resulted in greater dyspnea relief at 48 h (placebo, 37% vs. OM, 51%; p = 0.034) and through 5 days (p = 0.038) in the high-dose cohort. OM exerted plasma concentration-related increases in left ventricular systolic ejection time (p Conclusions In patients with AHF, intravenous OM did not meet the primary endpoint of dyspnea improvement, but it was generally well tolerated, it increased systolic ejection time, and it may have improved dyspnea in the high-dose group. (Acute Treatment with Omecamtiv Mecarbil to Increase Contractility in Acute Heart Failure [ATOMIC-AHF]; NCT01300013 )

Omecamtiv mecarbil (OM) is a selective cardiac myosin activator that increases myocardial function in healthy volunteers and in patients with chronic heart failure.This study evaluated the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, tolerability, safety, and efficacy of OM in patients with acute heart failure (AHF).Patients admitted for AHF with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%, dyspnea, and elevated plasma concentrations of natriuretic peptides were randomized to receive a double-blind, 48-h intravenous infusion of placebo or OM in 3 sequential, escalating-dose cohorts.In 606 patients, OM did not improve the primary endpoint of dyspnea relief (3 OM dose groups and pooled placebo: placebo, 41%; OM cohort 1, 42%; cohort 2, 47%; cohort 3, 51%; p = 0.33) or any of the secondary outcomes studied. In supplemental, pre-specified analyses, OM resulted in greater dyspnea relief at 48 h (placebo, 37% vs. OM, 51%; p = 0.034) and through 5 days (p = 0.038) in the high-dose cohort. OM exerted plasma concentration-related increases in left ventricular systolic ejection time (p0.0001) and decreases in end-systolic dimension (p0.05). The adverse event profile and tolerability of OM were similar to those of placebo, without increases in ventricular or supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. Plasma troponin concentrations were higher in OM-treated patients compared with placebo (median difference at 48 h, 0.004 ng/ml), but with no obvious relationship with OM concentration (p = 0.95).In patients with AHF, intravenous OM did not meet the primary endpoint of dyspnea improvement, but it was generally well tolerated, it increased systolic ejection time, and it may have improved dyspnea in the high-dose group. (Acute Treatment with Omecamtiv Mecarbil to Increase Contractility in Acute Heart Failure [ATOMIC-AHF]; NCT01300013).