Search

Aims: Chronic hyperglycaemia, assessed by elevated glycated haemoglobin (A1C), is a known risk factor for heart failure (HF) and cardiovascular (CV) death among subjects with diabetes. Whether this risk varies with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is unknown. This study evaluated whether A1C influences a composite outcome of either HF hospitalization or CV death differently along the spectrum of LVEF., Methods and Results: We assessed the relationships of baseline A1C and LVEF with a composite outcome of either CV death or HF hospitalization in the 4091 patients with type 2 diabetes and a recent acute coronary syndrome enrolled in the ELIXA trial who had available LVEF. We assessed for interaction between A1C and LVEF as continuous variables with respect to this outcome. During a median follow-up of 25.7 months, 343 patients (8.4%) had HF hospitalization or died of CV causes. In a multivariable model, A1C and LVEF were each associated with an increased risk of HF hospitalization or CV death [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-1.21 per 1% higher A1C, and adjusted HR 1.39, 95% CI 1.27-1.51 per 10% lower in LVEF]. Both A1C and LVEF were independently and incrementally associated with risk without evidence of interaction (P for interaction = 0.31). Patients with A1C ≥ 8% and LVEF <40% were at threefold higher risk than those with A1C < 7% and LVEF ≥50% (adjusted HR 3.18, 95% CI 2.03-4.98, P < 0.001)., Conclusion: In a contemporary cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes and acute coronary syndrome, baseline chronic hyperglycaemia was associated with an increased risk of HF hospitalization or CV death independently of LVEF., (© 2020 European Society of Cardiology.)

Responding to concerns about the potential for increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, specifically myocardial infarction, associated with certain glucose-lowering therapies, the US Food and Drug Administration and the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency issued guidance to the pharmaceutical industry in 2008. Glucose-lowering therapies were granted regulatory approval primarily from smaller studies that have demonstrated reductions in glycated hemoglobin concentration. Such studies were overall underpowered and of insufficient duration to show any effect on cardiovascular outcomes. The 2008 guidance aimed to ensure the cardiovascular safety of new glucose-lowering therapies to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This resulted in a plethora of new cardiovascular outcome trials, most designed primarily as placebo-controlled noninferiority trials, but with many also powered for superiority. Several of these outcome trials demonstrated cardiovascular benefits of the newer agents, resulting in the first-ever cardiovascular protection indications for glucose-lowering therapies. Determining whether the guidance continues to have value in its current form is critically important as we move forward after the first decade of implementation. In February 2018, a think tank comprising representatives from academia, industry, and regulatory agencies convened to consider the guidance in light of the findings of the completed cardiovascular outcome trials. The group made several recommendations for future regulatory guidance and for cardiovascular outcome trials of glucose-lowering therapies. These recommendations include requiring only the 1.3 noninferiority margin for regulatory approval, conducting trials for longer durations, considering studying glucose-lowering therapies as first-line management of type 2 diabetes mellitus, considering heart failure or kidney outcomes within the primary outcome, considering head-to-head active comparator trials, increasing the diversity of patients enrolled, evaluating strategies to streamline registries and the study of unselected populations, and identifying ways to improve translation of trial results to general practice.

Introduction: We investigated the association of diabetic retinopathy and neuropathy with increased risk of recurrent cardiovascular (CV) events in 6068 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS) enrolled in the Evaluation of Lixisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome (ELIXA)., Methods: History of retinopathy and neuropathy as well as duration of T2DM were self-reported at screening. Proportional hazards regression models were used to assess relationships between retinopathy, neuropathy, and recurrent CV events., Results: At screening, retinopathy and neuropathy were reported in 10.7% and 17.5% of patients, respectively, while 5.7% reported both. When adjusted for randomized treatment only, both retinopathy and neuropathy were associated with a primary composite outcome (CV death, nonfatal MI, stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina) (retinopathy: HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.19-1.75; neuropathy: HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.12-1.57), CV composite (CV death, nonfatal MI, stroke, hospitalization for heart failure (HF)) (retinopathy: HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.31-1.88; neuropathy: HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.19-1.62), myocardial infarction (retinopathy: HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.08-1.76; neuropathy: HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.02-1.54), HF hospitalization (retinopathy: HR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48-2.78; neuropathy: HR 1.71, 95% CI 1.30-2.27), and all-cause mortality (retinopathy: HR 1.65, 95% CI 1.28-2.12; neuropathy: HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.14-1.78). When included in the same model, and adjusted for T2DM duration, there were no independent associations of either with CV outcomes, while T2DM duration remained strongly associated with all outcomes. Addition of demographic characteristics and CV risk factors did not further alter these relationships., Conclusions: In patients with T2DM and recent ACS, a history of retinopathy and/or neuropathy and longer T2DM duration could be considered clinical markers for high risk of recurrent CV events. This trial is registered with the ELIXA (Evaluation of Lixisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome), ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT01147250.

Background: Natriuretic peptides are recognized as important predictors of cardiovascular events in patients with heart failure, but less is known about their prognostic importance in patients with acute coronary syndrome. We sought to determine whether B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal prohormone B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) could enhance risk prediction of a broad range of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome and type 2 diabetes mellitus., Methods and Results: Patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome and type 2 diabetes mellitus were prospectively enrolled in the ELIXA trial (n=5525, follow-up time 26 months). Best risk models were constructed from relevant baseline variables with and without BNP/NT-proBNP. C statistics, Net Reclassification Index, and Integrated Discrimination Index were analyzed to estimate the value of adding BNP or NT-proBNP to best risk models. Overall, BNP and NT-proBNP were the most important predictors of all outcomes examined, irrespective of history of heart failure or any prior cardiovascular disease. BNP significantly improved C statistics when added to risk models for each outcome examined, the strongest increments being in death (0.77-0.82, P <0.001), cardiovascular death (0.77-0.83, P <0.001), and heart failure (0.84-0.87, P <0.001). BNP or NT-proBNP alone predicted death as well as all other variables combined (0.77 versus 0.77)., Conclusions: In patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome and type 2 diabetes mellitus, BNP and NT-proBNP were powerful predictors of cardiovascular outcomes beyond heart failure and death, ie, were also predictive of MI and stroke. Natriuretic peptides added as much predictive information about death as all other conventional variables combined., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01147250., (© 2017 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley Blackwell.)

Background: Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality are higher among patients with type 2 diabetes, particularly those with concomitant cardiovascular diseases, than in most other populations. We assessed the effects of lixisenatide, a glucagon-like peptide 1-receptor agonist, on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes who had had a recent acute coronary event., Methods: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes who had had a myocardial infarction or who had been hospitalized for unstable angina within the previous 180 days to receive lixisenatide or placebo in addition to locally determined standards of care. The trial was designed with adequate statistical power to assess whether lixisenatide was noninferior as well as superior to placebo, as defined by an upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio of less than 1.3 and 1.0, respectively, for the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina., Results: The 6068 patients who underwent randomization were followed for a median of 25 months. A primary end-point event occurred in 406 patients (13.4%) in the lixisenatide group and in 399 (13.2%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89 to 1.17), which showed the noninferiority of lixisenatide to placebo (P<0.001) but did not show superiority (P=0.81). There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of hospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio in the lixisenatide group, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.23) or the rate of death (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.13). Lixisenatide was not associated with a higher rate of serious adverse events or severe hypoglycemia, pancreatitis, pancreatic neoplasms, or allergic reactions than was placebo., Conclusions: In patients with type 2 diabetes and a recent acute coronary syndrome, the addition of lixisenatide to usual care did not significantly alter the rate of major cardiovascular events or other serious adverse events. (Funded by Sanofi; ELIXA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01147250.).

Background: The neurokinin(1) antagonist aprepitant is effective for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. We compared aprepitant with ondansetron for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting., Methods: Nine hundred and twenty-two patients receiving general anaesthesia for major abdominal surgery were assigned to receive a single preoperative dose of oral aprepitant 40 mg, oral aprepitant 125 mg, or i.v. ondansetron 4 mg in a randomized, double-blind trial. Vomiting episodes, use of rescue therapy, and nausea severity (verbal rating scale) were documented for 48 h after surgery. Primary efficacy endpoints were complete response (no vomiting and no use of rescue therapy) 0-24 h after surgery and no vomiting 0-24 h after surgery. The secondary endpoint was no vomiting 0-48 h after surgery., Results: Aprepitant at both doses was non-inferior to ondansetron for complete response 0-24 h after surgery (64% for aprepitant 40 mg, 63% for aprepitant 125 mg, and 55% for ondansetron, lower bound of 1-sided 95% CI > 0.65), superior to ondansetron for no vomiting 0-24 h after surgery (84% for aprepitant 40 mg, 86% for aprepitant 125 mg, and 71% for ondansetron; P < 0.001), and superior for no vomiting 0-48 h after surgery (82% for aprepitant, 40 mg, 85% for aprepitant, 125 mg, and 66% for ondansetron; P < 0.001). The distribution of peak nausea scores was lower in both aprepitant groups vs ondansetron (P < 0.05)., Conclusions: Aprepitant was non-inferior to ondansetron in achieving complete response for 24 h after surgery. Aprepitant was significantly more effective than ondansetron for preventing vomiting at 24 and 48 h after surgery, and in reducing nausea severity in the first 48 h after surgery. Aprepitant was generally well tolerated.

Background: Antiemetics currently in use are not totally effective. Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists are a new class of antiemetic that have shown promise for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. This is the first study evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, aprepitant, for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting., Methods: In this multicenter, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 805 patients receiving general anesthesia for open abdominal surgery to a preoperative dose of aprepitant 40 mg orally, aprepitant 125 mg orally, or ondansetron 4 mg IV. Vomiting, nausea, and use of rescue therapy were assessed over 48 h after surgery. Treatments were compared using logistic regression., Results: Incidence rates for the primary end point (complete response [no vomiting and no use of rescue] over 0-24 h after surgery, tested for superiority of aprepitant) were not different across groups (45% with aprepitant 40 mg, 43% with aprepitant 125 mg, and 42% with ondansetron). The incidence of no vomiting (0-24 h) was higher with aprepitant 40 mg (90%) and aprepitant 125 mg (95%) versus ondansetron (74%) (P < 0.001 for both comparisons), although between-treatment use of rescue and nausea control was not different. Both aprepitant doses also had higher incidences of no vomiting over 0-48 h (P < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were seen among the side effect profiles of the treatments., Conclusions: Aprepitant was superior to ondansetron for prevention of vomiting in the first 24 and 48 h, but no significant differences were observed between aprepitant and ondansetron for nausea control, use of rescue, or complete response.