Search

Background: Steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists reduce morbidity and mortality among patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, but their efficacy in those with heart failure and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction has not been established. Data regarding the efficacy and safety of the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction are needed., Methods: In this international, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or greater, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive finerenone (at a maximum dose of 20 mg or 40 mg once daily) or matching placebo, in addition to usual therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of total worsening heart failure events (with an event defined as a first or recurrent unplanned hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure) and death from cardiovascular causes. The components of the primary outcome and safety were also assessed., Results: Over a median follow-up of 32 months, 1083 primary-outcome events occurred in 624 of 3003 patients in the finerenone group, and 1283 primary-outcome events occurred in 719 of 2998 patients in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 0.95; P = 0.007). The total number of worsening heart failure events was 842 in the finerenone group and 1024 in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.94; P = 0.006). The percentage of patients who died from cardiovascular causes was 8.1% and 8.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.11). Finerenone was associated with an increased risk of hyperkalemia and a reduced risk of hypokalemia., Conclusions: In patients with heart failure and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, finerenone resulted in a significantly lower rate of a composite of total worsening heart failure events and death from cardiovascular causes than placebo. (Funded by Bayer; FINEARTS-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04435626.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Psychosocial evaluations are rarely conducted with community-dwelling individuals, especially those with higher risk of cardiovascular disease. This study aims to evaluate the perceptual stress and cardiovascular risk among women in a large cross-sectional study performed in Brazilian communities. Subjects aged over 18 years were included out of 500 public basic health units (BHU) in Brazil. All subjects were subjected to a clinical consultation and questionnaires application. Data were used to identify healthy lifestyle, smoking status, and self-perception of psychological stress. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) risk score (NRS) was used to estimate cardiovascular risk. Ethnicity information was self-reported, considering white versus non-white (black, brown, and mixed-race) women. A total of 93,605 patients were recruited from a primary care setting, of which 62,200 (66.4%) were women. Intense and severe auto-perception of stress was higher within non-white women at home (p < 0.001), at work (p = 0.008), socially (p < 0.001), and financially (p < 0.001) compared to white women. Therefore, the NRS indicates that non-white women had higher cardiovascular risk, lower physical activity, and lower daily vegetables/fruits consumption compared to white women (p < 0.001). Non-white women in Brazilian communities are susceptible to increased stress and cardiovascular disease risk, which adds up to disparities in access to the public health system.

Aims: To describe the baseline characteristics of participants in the FINEARTS-HF trial, contextualized with prior trials including patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF). The FINEARTS-HF trial is comparing the effects of the non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone with placebo in reducing cardiovascular death and total worsening HF events in patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF., Methods and Results: Patients with symptomatic HF, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥40%, estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 25 ml/min/1.73 m 2 , elevated natriuretic peptide levels and evidence of structural heart disease were enrolled and randomized to finerenone titrated to a maximum of 40 mg once daily or matching placebo. We validly randomized 6001 patients to finerenone or placebo (mean age 72 ± 10 years, 46% women). The majority were New York Heart Association functional class II (69%). The baseline mean LVEF was 53 ± 8% (range 34-84%); 36% of participants had a LVEF <50% and 64% had a LVEF ≥50%. The median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) was 1041 (interquartile range 449-1946) pg/ml. A total of 1219 (20%) patients were enrolled during or within 7 days of a worsening HF event, and 3247 (54%) patients were enrolled within 3 months of a worsening HF event. Compared with prior large-scale HFmrEF/HFpEF trials, FINEARTS-HF participants were more likely to have recent (within 6 months) HF hospitalization and greater symptoms and functional limitations. Further, concomitant medications included a larger percentage of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors than previous trials., Conclusions: FINEARTS-HF has enrolled a broad range of high-risk patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF. The trial will determine the safety and efficacy of finerenone in this population., (© 2024 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Clinical trials showed the safety of Edoxaban, a non-vitamin K-dependent oral anticoagulant (NOAC), and its efficacy to prevent stroke and systemic embolism in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients and also to prevent and treat venous thromboembolism. However, additional research is needed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of Edoxaban in a real-world scenario in the Brazilian population., Objective: In order to understand the risks and benefits of Edoxaban use in routine clinical settings, the EdoBRA study is being conducted to gain insight into the safety and effectiveness of Edoxaban use in non-preselected patients with NVAF in Brazil., Methods: The EdoBRA study is a multicenter, prospective, observational study conducted in 36 sites in Brazil. NVAF patients ≥ 18 years treated with commercially available Edoxaban who initiated treatment for at least 14 days and no longer than 90 days prior to enrollment, and who are not simultaneously participating in any interventional study are eligible for this study. Seven hundred patients are planned to be enrolled and one-year of follow up, with data collections expected at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months after the study enrollment. The primary safety objective is ISTH Clinically Relevant Bleeding, and the secondary effectiveness objective focuses on relevant cardiovascular outcomes related to NVAF., Conclusion: EdoBRA observational study will generate relevant additional information about NOAC Edoxaban on various aspects of patient management in routine care, such as its safety and effectiveness profile in patients with NVAF in Brazil.

Importance: An initial decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is expected after initiating a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) and has been observed across patients with diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure., Objective: To examine the implications of initial changes in eGFR among patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) enrolled in the Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure (DELIVER) trial., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a prespecified analysis of the results of the DELIVER randomized clinical trial, which was an international multicenter study of patients with EF greater than 40% and eGFR greater than or equal to 25. The DELIVER trial took place from August 2018 to March 2022. Data for the current prespecified study were analyzed from February to October 2023., Intervention: Dapagliflozin, 10 mg per day, or placebo., Main Outcomes and Measures: In this prespecified analysis, the frequency of an initial eGFR decline (baseline to month 1) was compared between dapagliflozin and placebo. Cox models adjusted for baseline eGFR and established prognostic factors were fit to estimate the association of an initial eGFR decline with cardiovascular (cardiovascular death or heart failure event) and kidney (≥50% eGFR decline, eGFR<15 or dialysis, death from kidney causes) outcomes, landmarked at month 1, stratified by diabetes., Results: Study data from 5788 participants (mean [SD] age, 72 [10] years; 3253 male [56%]) were analyzed. The median (IQR) change in eGFR level from baseline to month 1 was -1 (-6 to 5) with placebo and -4 (-9 to 1) with dapagliflozin (difference, -3; P < .001). A higher proportion of patients assigned to dapagliflozin developed an initial eGFR decline greater than 10% vs placebo (1144 of 2892 [40%] vs 737 of 2896 [25%]; odds ratio, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.7-2.1; P difference <.001). An initial eGFR decline of greater than 10% (vs ≤10%) was associated with a higher risk of the primary cardiovascular outcome among those randomized to placebo (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.10-1.62) but not among those randomized to dapagliflozin (aHR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.74-1.09; P for interaction = .01). Similar associations were observed when alternative thresholds of initial eGFR decline were considered and when analyzed as a continuous measure. An initial eGFR decline of greater than 10% was not associated with adverse subsequent kidney composite outcomes in dapagliflozin-treated patients (aHR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.49-1.82)., Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF treated with dapagliflozin, an initial eGFR decline was frequent but not associated with subsequent risk of cardiovascular or kidney events. These data reinforce clinical guidance that SGLT2is should not be interrupted or discontinued in response to an initial eGFR decline., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03619213.

Background: Children with heart disease frequently require anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis. Current standard of care (SOC), vitamin K antagonists or low-molecular-weight heparin, has significant disadvantages., Objectives: The authors sought to describe safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics, and efficacy of apixaban, an oral, direct factor Xa inhibitor, for prevention of thromboembolism in children with congenital or acquired heart disease., Methods: Phase 2, open-label trial in children (ages, 28 days to <18 years) with heart disease requiring thromboprophylaxis. Randomization 2:1 apixaban or SOC for 1 year with intention-to-treat analysis., Primary Endpoint: a composite of adjudicated major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. Secondary endpoints: PK, pharmacodynamics, quality of life, and exploration of efficacy., Results: From 2017 to 2021, 192 participants were randomized, 129 apixaban and 63 SOC. Diagnoses included single ventricle (74%), Kawasaki disease (14%), and other heart disease (12%). One apixaban participant (0.8%) and 3 with SOC (4.8%) had major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (% difference -4.0 [95% CI: -12.8 to 0.8]). Apixaban incidence rate for all bleeding events was nearly twice the rate of SOC (100.0 vs 58.2 per 100 person-years), driven by 12 participants with ≥4 minor bleeding events. No thromboembolic events or deaths occurred in either arm. Apixaban pediatric PK steady-state exposures were consistent with adult levels., Conclusions: In this pediatric multinational, randomized trial, bleeding and thromboembolism were infrequent on apixaban and SOC. Apixaban PK data correlated well with adult trials that demonstrated efficacy. These results support the use of apixaban as an alternative to SOC for thromboprophylaxis in pediatric heart disease. (A Study of the Safety and Pharmacokinetics of Apixaban Versus Vitamin K Antagonist [VKA] or Low Molecular Weight Heparin [LMWH] in Pediatric Subjects With Congenital or Acquired Heart Disease Requiring Anticoagulation; NCT02981472)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This trial was supported by the Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, in collaboration with the NHLBI-funded Pediatric Heart Network (grant numbers: HL135646, HL135665, HL135666, HL135678, HL135680, HL135682, HL135683, HL135685, HL135689, HL135691). Bristol Myers Squibb provided all financing and drugs for this trial; managed the trial data, adjudication process, and clinical sites; and was involved in the design of the study. The Pediatric Heart Network (PHN) provided scientific input on the trial design and contributed organizational infrastructure including the Data and Safety Monitoring Board, Protocol Review Committee, Publications and Presentations Committee, and additional logistical support for United States–based sites. Editorial support was provided by Caudex and was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Any publication-related fees will be funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. In collaboration with the trial steering committee, Bristol Myers Squibb was involved in the writing of this manuscript and decision to submit the paper for publication. Dr Payne has received grants or contracts from the National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), Friedreich Ataxia Research Alliance, and Additional Ventures non-profit organization; has received royalties or license from inventions: Wake Forest University, Larimar Therapeutics, and Indiana University; has received consulting fees from Larimar Therapeutics Inc.; has received support for attending meetings or travel from Indiana University School of Medicine; has 2 patents pending at Indiana University School of Medicine; is chair or is on the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for NIH study on Friedreich Ataxia; has served on the scientific advisory board for Friedreich Ataxia Research Alliance; and has stock in Larimar Therapeutics, Inc. Dr Glatz has received grants or contracts from NIH/NHLBI. Dr Male has received payment or honoraria from Anthos, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Chiesi, Janssen, and Norgine; and has a leadership or fiduciary role in Pediatric Anti-thrombotic Trials Leadership & Steering (Pedi-ATLAS) Group. Dr Brandão has received participation in an advisory committee for AstraZeneca (Andexxa in pediatrics) and Boehringer Ingelheim (dabigatran in children). Dr VanderPluym has received grants or contracts from the Georgia Claire Bowen Foundation; has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca and Merck; and participates in an advisory committee for the Valor Trial (Veriguciat in pediatric heart failure), and Andexxa in pediatrics in Europe. Dr Kochilas has received grants or contracts from NIH/NHLBI, Department of Defense, and Novartis Pharma; and participates in the Mitochondrial transplant study: Boston Children’s Hospital. Dr Stiller has received consulting fees from Janssen and Novartis; and has received payment or honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr Cnota has received grants or contracts from NIH/NHLBI and Additional Ventures nonprofit organization; has received support for attending meetings or travel from the American Heart Association CSSP committee; and has participated on the NIH-NHLBI DSMB, Advisory Board for Inozyme Pharma. Dr Rahkonen has received payment or honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr Adorisio has received grants or contracts from HORIZON 2022, Ministry of Italian Public Health; and has received consulting fees and payment or honoraria from PTC Therapeutics. Dr Stoica has been a co-applicant on research grants from local charities, National Institute of Health Research, the Health Foundation, and industry (Livanova, Admedus); has received payment or honoraria from LeMaitre Vascular; has received payment for expert testimony; and was audit co-lead in the Society of Cardiothoracic Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland and at the National Institute of Cardiovascular Outcomes and Research. Dr May has received institutional support for conference fees. Dr Saraiva has a conflict of interest with AstraZeneca, Novartis, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer, Janssen, and Bayer; has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer, Janssen, and Bayer; has received payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer, Janssen, and Bayer; has received payment for expert testimony from AstraZeneca; has received support for attending meetings or travel from Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, and Boehringer; and has participated in the Allbert Einstein Academic Research Organization, Brazil. Dr Rubio has stock in BMS (obtained in 2001). Dr Meador has Concurrent employment with AtriCure effective September 2022. Ms Wheaton has a contract between HealthCore (now known as Carelon Research) and BMS to conduct the SAXOPHONE study. Dr Ajavon-Hartmann and Ms Mills are employees of and have stock options in Bristol Myers Squibb. Drs Jarugula, Reedy, and Dyme and Ms Carlson-Taneja are employees of Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr Monagle has received patents planned, issued, or pending from University of Melbourne and McMaster University: No commercial interests or connections since 2011. No current licensing agreements and no ongoing negotiations to license. Expect patents to expire in the next couple of years - Thrombin generation assay. Inventors: Berry LR, Ignjatovic V, Monagle PT, Chan AKC. U.S. patent, patent no. 8138308, “Modified Peptide Substrate”, issued 20 March 2012 “Enzyme Measurement Assay Using a Modified Substrate Comprising a Substrate Attached to a Macromolecule via a Spacer”: India patent no. 244241, issued November 25, 2010; Europe patent application, serial no. 06840527.3, issued October 2019; China patent application, serial no. 200680053447, filed December 21, 2006; and Japan patent application, serial no. 2008-547812, filed December 21, 2006. Dr Monagle has participated in Bayer Einstein junior suite of studies (Rivaroxaban in children): steering committee and writing committee; is an unpaid site investigator for the Bristol Myers Squibb SAXOPHONE study (apixaban in children): steering committee and writing committee; has been a site investigator (Unpaid, Ongoing) for Janssen; is an unpaid advisory board member for Milvexian; is an unpaid advisory board member for Takeda; is an unpaid advisory board member for Ceprotinin; and is an Associate Investigator for AstraZeneca, Takeda, Stago, Bayer, Janssen, and Pfizer. The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. All rights reserved.)

Background: Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains a major challenge, especially in communities of low- and middle-income countries with poor medical assistance influenced by distinct local, financial, infrastructural, and resource-related factors., Objective: This a community-based study aimed to determine the proportion and prevalence of uncontrolled cardiovascular risk factors (CRF) in Brazilian communities., Methods: The EPICO study was an observational, cross-sectional, and community clinic-based study. Subjects were living in Brazilian communities and were of both sexes and ≥18 years old, without a history of a stroke or myocardial infarction but presenting at least one of the following cardiovascular risk factors: hypertension, diabetes mellitus and hypercholesterolemia. The study was carried out in Brazil, including 322 basic health units (BHU) in 32 cities., Results: A total of 7,724 subjects with at least one CRF were evaluated, and one clinical visit was performed. Mean age was 59.2 years-old (53.7% were >60 years old). A total of 66.7% were women. Of the total, 96.2% had hypertension, 78.8% had diabetes mellitus type II, 71.1% had dyslipidemia, and 76.6% of patients were overweight/obese. Controlled hypertension (defined by <130/80 mmHg or <140/90 mmHg) was observed in 34.9% and 55.5% patients among respective criteria, the rates of controlled blood glucose in patients taking antidiabetic medications was 29.5%, and among those with documented dyslipidemia who received any lipid-lowering medication, only 13.9% had LDL-c on target. For patients presenting three CRF less than 1.9% had LDL-c < 100 mg/dL once their BP and blood glucose were on target. High education level as associated with blood pressure (BP) target of less than 130 / 80mm Hg. The glucose and LDL-c levels on target were associated with the presence of hypertension and diabetes mellitus., Conclusion: In Brazilian community clinics, regarding most patients in primary prevention, the CRF such as BP, blood glucose, and lipid levels are poorly controlled, with a majority of patients not achieving guidelines/recommendations., Competing Interests: The authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright: © 2023 The Author(s).)

Background: Black people have a higher incidence and prevalence of heart failure (HF) than White people, and once HF has developed, they may have worse outcomes. There is also evidence that the response to several pharmacologic therapies may differ between Black and White patients., Objectives: The authors sought to examine the outcomes and response to treatment with dapagliflozin according to Black or White race in a pooled analysis of 2 trials comparing dapagliflozin to placebo in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (DAPA-HF [Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure]) and heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction/heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (DELIVER [Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure])., Methods: Because most self-identified Black patients were enrolled in the Americas, the comparator group was White patients randomized in the same regions. The primary outcome was the composite of worsening HF or cardiovascular death., Results: Of the 3,526 patients randomized in the Americas, 2,626 (74.5%) identified as White and 381 (10.8%) as Black. The primary outcome occurred at a rate of 16.8 (95% CI: 13.8-20.4) in Black patients compared with 11.6 (95% CI: 10.6-12.7) per 100 person-years in White patients (adjusted HR: 1.27; 95% CI: 1.01-1.59). Compared with placebo, dapagliflozin decreased the risk of the primary endpoint to the same extent in Black (HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.47-1.02) and White patients (HR: 0.73 [95% CI: 0.61-0.88]; P interaction  = 0.73). The number of patients needed to treat with dapagliflozin to prevent one event over the median follow-up was 17 in White and 12 in Black patients. The beneficial effects and favorable safety profile of dapagliflozin were consistent across the range of left ventricular ejection fractions in both Black and White patients., Conclusions: The relative benefits of dapagliflozin were consistent in Black and White patients across the range of left ventricular ejection fraction, with greater absolute benefits in Black patients. (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure [DAPA-HF]; NCT03036124; Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure [DELIVER]; NCT03619213)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials were funded by AstraZeneca. Prof McMurray is supported by a British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence Grant RE/18/6/34217. Dr Butt has received advisory board honoraria from Bayer. Dr Docherty has received honoraria from AstraZeneca and a research grant to his institution from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Claggett has received consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Desai has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Abbott, Biofourmis, Boston Scientific, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvidia, DalCor Pharma, Relypsa, Regeneron, and Merck; grants and personal fees from Alnylam and Novartis; and personal fees from Amgen, outside of the submitted work. Dr Fang has received either personal or institutional research support for DELIVER from AstraZeneca. Dr Petersson is an employee and shareholder of AstraZeneca. Dr Langkilde is an employee and shareholder of AstraZeneca. Dr de Boer’s institution, the UMCG, has received research grants and fees (outside of the submitted work) from AstraZeneca, Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardio Pharmaceuticals Gmbh, Ionis Pharmaceuticals Inc, Novo Nordisk, and Roche. Dr de Boer has received speaker fees from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, and Roche (outside of the submitted work). Dr Hernandez has received research support from American Regent, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novartis, and Verily; and has served as a consultant or on the Advisory Board for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Myokardia, Merck, Novartis, and Vifor. Dr Inzucchi has served on clinical trial committees or as a consultant to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Lexicon, Merck, Pfizer, vTv Therapeutics, Abbott, and Esperion; and has given lectures sponsored by AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Kosiborod has received research grant support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim; has served as a consultant or on an advisory board for Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Esperion Therapeutics, Janssen, Merck (Diabetes and Cardiovascular), Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Vifor Pharma; has received other research support from AstraZeneca; and has received honorarium from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk. Dr Køber has received compensation from Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and AstraZeneca for other services. Dr Lam is supported by a Clinician Scientist Award from the National Medical Research Council of Singapore; has received research support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, and Roche Diagnostics; has served as a consultant or on the advisory board/steering committee/executive committee for Actelion, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Darma Inc, Us2.ai, Janssen Research and Development LLC, Medscape, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Radcliffe Group Ltd, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, and WebMD Global LLC; and serves as the cofounder and nonexecutive director of Us2.ai. Dr Martinez has received personal fees from AstraZeneca. Dr Ponikowski has received compensation from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Servier, Amgen, and Vifor Pharma for consultant services; and compensation from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, and Abbott Vascular for other services. Dr Sabatine has received research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Abbott, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Intarcia, IONIS, Medicines Company, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Quark Pharmaceuticals; and has done consulting for Althera, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CVS Caremark, DalCor, Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, Fibrogen, IFM Therapeutics, Intarcia, MedImmune, Merck, Moderna, and Novo Nordisk. Dr Vardeny has received either personal or institutional research support for DELIVER from AstraZeneca. Dr O’Meara or her institution has received financial support for clinical trials from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, and Novartis; and has served as a consultant or speaker for Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and AstraZeneca. Dr Saraiva has received research grant support from Pfizer, Daichii Sankyo, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Amgen, and Novartis; and has received honorarium from Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, and Amgen. Dr Shah has received either personal or institutional research support for DELIVER from AstraZeneca. Dr Vaduganathan has received research grant support or served on advisory boards for American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Baxter Healthcare, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, and Relypsa; has had speaker engagements with Novartis and Roche Diagnostics; and has participated on clinical endpoint committees for studies sponsored by Galmed and Novartis. Dr Jhund's employer, the University of Glasgow, has been remunerated by AstraZeneca for working on the DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials. Dr Jhund has received personal fees from Novartis and Cytokinetics; and has received grants from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Solomon has received research grants from Actelion, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lilly, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, National Institutes of Health/NHLBI, Neurotronik, Novartis, NovoNordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, Theracos, and US2.AI; and has consulted for Abbott, Action, Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardior, Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi-Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, Myokardia, Novartis, Roche, Theracos, Quantum Genomics, Cardurion, Janssen, Cardiac Dimensions, Tenaya, Sanofi-Pasteur, Dinaqor, Tremeau, CellPro-Thera, Moderna, American Regent, and Sarepta. Dr McMurray has received payments through Glasgow University from work on clinical trials; consulting fees and fees for other activities from Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardurion, Cytokinetics, Dal-Cor, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, KBP Biosciences, Novartis, Pfizer, and Theracos; has received personal lecture fees from the Corpus, Abbott, Hikma, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Medscape/Heart.Org, Radcliffe Cardiology, Servier Director, and Global Clinical Trial Partners (GCTP)., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Importance: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors are known to reduce heart failure events and slow progression of kidney disease among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction., Objective: To determine the effect of dapagliflozin on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes and the influence of baseline kidney disease among patients with heart failure and a mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction enrolled in the Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure (DELIVER) trial., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a prespecified analysis conducted from July 1 to September 18, 2022 of the DELIVER randomized clinical trial. This was an international, multicenter trial including patients with ejection fraction greater than 40% and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25 mL/min/1.73 m2 or higher., Interventions: Dapagliflozin, 10 mg, per day or placebo., Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes assessed were whether baseline kidney function modified the treatment effect on the primary outcome (cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure). Also examined was the treatment effect on the prespecified outcomes of eGFR slope and a post hoc composite kidney outcome (first ≥50% decline in eGFR from baseline; first eGFR <15 mL/min/1.73 m2; end-stage kidney disease; death from kidney causes)., Results: A total of 6262 patients (mean [SD] age, 72 [10] years; 3516 male [56%]) had mean (SD) eGFR measurements available: 61 (19) mL/min/1.73 m2; 3070 patients (49%) had an eGFR less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2. The effect of dapagliflozin on the primary outcome was not influenced by baseline eGFR category (eGFR ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2: hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-1.00; eGFR 45-<60 mL/min/1.73 m2: HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.87; eGFR <45 mL/min/1.73 m2: HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76-1.14; P for interaction = .16). Over a median (IQR) follow-up of 2.3 (1.7-2.8) years, the overall incidence rate of the kidney composite outcome was low (1.1 events per 100 patient-years) and was not affected by treatment with dapagliflozin (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.79-1.49). However, dapagliflozin attenuated the decline in eGFR from baseline (difference, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.1-0.9 mL/min/1.73 m2 per year; P = .01) and from month 1 to 36 (difference, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-1.8) mL/min/1.73 m2 per year; P < .001)., Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this prespecified analysis showed that baseline kidney function did not modify the benefit of dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure and a mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. Dapagliflozin did not significantly reduce the frequency of the kidney composite outcome, although the overall event rate was low. However, dapagliflozin slowed the rate of decline in eGFR compared with placebo., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03619213.

Background: Vilobelimab, an anti-C5a monoclonal antibody, was shown to be safe in a phase 2 trial of invasively mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19. Here, we aimed to determine whether vilobelimab in addition to standard of care improves survival outcomes in this patient population., Methods: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre phase 3 trial was performed at 46 hospitals in the Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium, Russia, Brazil, Peru, Mexico, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years or older who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, but not more than 48 h after intubation at time of first infusion, had a PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio of 60-200 mm Hg, and a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection with any variant in the past 14 days were eligible for this study. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive standard of care and vilobelimab at a dose of 800 mg intravenously for a maximum of six doses (days 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, and 22) or standard of care and a matching placebo using permuted block randomisation. Treatment was not continued after hospital discharge. Participants, caregivers, and assessors were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was defined as all-cause mortality at 28 days in the full analysis set (defined as all randomly assigned participants regardless of whether a patient started treatment, excluding patients randomly assigned in error) and measured using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Safety analyses included all patients who had received at least one infusion of either vilobelimab or placebo. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04333420., Findings: From Oct 1, 2020, to Oct 4, 2021, we included 368 patients in the ITT analysis (full analysis set; 177 in the vilobelimab group and 191 in the placebo group). One patient in the vilobelimab group was excluded from the primary analysis due to random assignment in error without treatment. At least one dose of study treatment was given to 364 (99%) patients (safety analysis set). 54 patients (31%) of 177 in the vilobelimab group and 77 patients (40%) of 191 in the placebo group died in the first 28 days. The all-cause mortality rate at 28 days was 32% (95% CI 25-39) in the vilobelimab group and 42% (35-49) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·73, 95% CI 0·50-1·06; p=0·094). In the predefined analysis without site-stratification, vilobelimab significantly reduced all-cause mortality at 28 days (HR 0·67, 95% CI 0·48-0·96; p=0·027). The most common TEAEs were acute kidney injury (35 [20%] of 175 in the vilobelimab group vs 40 [21%] of 189 in the placebo), pneumonia (38 [22%] vs 26 [14%]), and septic shock (24 [14%] vs 31 [16%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 103 (59%) of 175 patients in the vilobelimab group versus 120 (63%) of 189 in the placebo group., Interpretation: In addition to standard of care, vilobelimab improves survival of invasive mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 and leads to a significant decrease in mortality. Vilobelimab could be considered as an additional therapy for patients in this setting and further research is needed on the role of vilobelimab and C5a in other acute respiratory distress syndrome-causing viral infections., Funding: InflaRx and the German Federal Government., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests NCR and RG are founders, active officers, and executive directors of the board, and hold shares and stock options in InflaRx. KP is the chief clinical development officer and holds stock options in InflaRx. RZ is the program director and holds stock options in InflaRx. SR is an employee of Metronomia Clinical Research and a contracted statistical service provider for InflaRx. MW receives grants from the German Research Foundation (SFB-TR84 C6, SFB-TR84 C9, and SFB 1449 B02) and German Ministry of Education and Research (e:Med CAPSyS [01ZX1304B], SYMPATH [01ZX1906A], NUM-NAPKON [01KX2021], and PROVID [01KI20160A]). APJV received consulting fees from InflaRx for advisory work, paid to the institution. GM received honoraria for lecturing and consulting from B Braun, 4TEEN4, Adrenomed, and Philips. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Frailty is increasing in prevalence. Because patients with frailty are often perceived to have a less favorable risk/benefit profile, they may be less likely to receive new pharmacologic treatments. We investigated the efficacy and tolerability of dapagliflozin according to frailty status in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction randomized in DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure)., Methods: Frailty was measured using the Rockwood cumulative deficit approach. The primary end point was time to a first worsening heart failure event or cardiovascular death., Results: Of the 6263 patients randomized, a frailty index (FI) was calculable in 6258. In total, 2354 (37.6%) patients had class 1 frailty (FI ≤0.210; ie, not frail), 2413 (38.6%) had class 2 frailty (FI 0.211-0.310; ie, more frail), and 1491 (23.8%) had class 3 frailty (FI ≥0.311; ie, most frail). Greater frailty was associated with a higher rate of the primary end point (per 100 person-years): FI class 1, 6.3 (95% CI 5.7-7.1); class 2, 8.3 (7.5-9.1); and class 3, 13.4 (12.1-14.7; P <0.001). The effect of dapagliflozin (as a hazard ratio) on the primary end point from FI class 1 to 3 was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.68-1.06), 0.89 (0.74-1.08), and 0.74 (0.61-0.91), respectively ( P interaction =0.40). Although patients with a greater degree of frailty had worse Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores at baseline, their improvement with dapagliflozin was greater than it was in patients with less frailty: placebo-corrected improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score at 4 months in FI class 1 was 0.3 (95% CI, -0.9 to 1.4); in class 2, 1.5 (0.3-2.7); and in class 3, 3.4 (1.7-5.1; P interaction =0.021). Adverse reactions and treatment discontinuation, although more frequent in patients with a greater degree of frailty, were not more common with dapagliflozin than with placebo irrespective of frailty class., Conclusions: In DELIVER, frailty was common and associated with worse outcomes. The benefit of dapagliflozin was consistent across the range of frailty studied. The improvement in health-related quality of life with dapagliflozin occurred early and was greater in patients with a higher level of frailty., Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03619213.

Background: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure and cardiovascular death among patients with chronic heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less. Whether SGLT2 inhibitors are effective in patients with a higher left ventricular ejection fraction remains less certain., Methods: We randomly assigned 6263 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of more than 40% to receive dapagliflozin (at a dose of 10 mg once daily) or matching placebo, in addition to usual therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of worsening heart failure (which was defined as either an unplanned hospitalization for heart failure or an urgent visit for heart failure) or cardiovascular death, as assessed in a time-to-event analysis., Results: Over a median of 2.3 years, the primary outcome occurred in 512 of 3131 patients (16.4%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 610 of 3132 patients (19.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 0.92; P<0.001). Worsening heart failure occurred in 368 patients (11.8%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 455 patients (14.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.91); cardiovascular death occurred in 231 patients (7.4%) and 261 patients (8.3%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.05). Total events and symptom burden were lower in the dapagliflozin group than in the placebo group. Results were similar among patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 60% or more and those with a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 60%, and results were similar in prespecified subgroups, including patients with or without diabetes. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups., Conclusions: Dapagliflozin reduced the combined risk of worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death among patients with heart failure and a mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. (Funded by AstraZeneca; DELIVER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03619213.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: The oral, selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor baricitinib has shown efficacy in studies of hospitalised adults with COVID-19. COV-BARRIER (NCT04421027) was a multinational, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of baricitinib in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of baricitinib plus standard of care in critically ill hospitalised adults with COVID-19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation., Methods: This exploratory trial followed the study design of COV-BARRIER in a critically ill cohort not included in the main phase 3 trial. The study was conducted across 18 hospitals in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and the USA. Participants (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection on baseline invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were randomly assigned (1:1) to baricitinib (4 mg) or placebo once daily for up to 14 days in combination with standard of care. Participants, study staff, and investigators were masked to study group assignment. Prespecified endpoints included all-cause mortality through days 28 and 60, number of ventilator-free days, duration of hospitalisation, and time to recovery through day 28. The efficacy analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and the safety analysis was done in the safety population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04421027., Findings: Between Dec 23, 2020, and April 10, 2021, 101 participants were enrolled into the exploratory trial and assigned to baricitinib (n=51) or placebo (n=50) plus standard of care. Standard of care included baseline systemic corticosteroid use in 87 (86%) participants. Treatment with baricitinib significantly reduced 28-day all-cause mortality compared with placebo (20 [39%] of 51 participants died in the baricitinib group vs 29 [58%] of 50 in the placebo group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·54 [95% CI 0·31-0·96]; p=0·030; 46% relative reduction; absolute risk reduction 19%). A significant reduction in 60-day mortality was also observed in the baricitinib group compared with the placebo group (23 [45%] events vs 31 [62%]; HR 0·56 [95% CI 0·33-0·97]; p=0·027; 44% relative reduction; absolute risk reduction 17%). In every six baricitinib-treated participants, one additional death was prevented compared with placebo at days 28 and 60. The number of ventilator-free days did not differ significantly between treatment groups (mean 8·1 days [SD 10·2] in the baricitinib group vs 5·5 days [8·4] in the placebo group; p=0·21). The mean duration of hospitalisation in baricitinib-treated participants was not significantly shorter than in placebo-treated participants (23·7 days [SD 7·1] vs 26·1 days [3·9]; p=0·050). The rates of infections, blood clots, and adverse cardiovascular events were similar between treatment groups., Interpretation: In critically ill hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, treatment with baricitinib compared with placebo (in combination with standard of care, including corticosteroids) reduced mortality, which is consistent with the mortality reduction observed in less severely ill patients in the hospitalised primary COV-BARRIER study population. However, this was an exploratory trial with a relatively small sample size; therefore, further phase 3 trials are needed to confirm these findings., Funding: Eli Lilly and Company., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests EWE reports research grants from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), NIH, and Veterans Affairs; and has served as an unpaid consultant for Eli Lilly and Company. AVR reports research grants from Eli Lilly and Company; and has served as a speaker or consultant for AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sobi, and Union Chimique Belge. CEK, SdB, RL, MLBP, and SC are employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company. JDG reports research support from Eli Lilly and Company, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Gilead Sciences; grants from NIH, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (administered by Merck), and Eurofins Viracor; and has served as a speaker or consultant for Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, and Mylan Pharmaceuticals. JFKS reports research grants from Eli Lilly and Company; and has served as a speaker or consultant for Eli Lilly and Company, Amgen, Novartis, Janssen, and NovoNordisk.​ VCM reports research grants from the CDC, Gilead Sciences, NIH, Veterans Affairs, and ViiV Healthcare; honoraria from Eli Lilly and Company; has served as an advisory board member for Eli Lilly and Company and Novartis; and has participated as a study section chair for the NIH., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Cardiovascular events related to atherosclerosis are responsible for high morbidity and mortality among patients with type 2 diabetes. Improvement in care, especially in early stages, is crucial. Oral semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue, controls blood glucose and results in significant body weight loss in patients with type 2 diabetes. Beyond these well-known effects, an interesting aspect of this drug is its antiatherogenic activity, which should be further explored in clinical practice. This paper reviews the evidence related to oral semaglutide decreasing cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes, focusing on the drug's antiatherosclerotic properties. The glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue restores endothelial dysfunction, induces vasodilatation, and reduces plasma lipids. Oral semaglutide showed cardiovascular safety profile, with significant reduced risk of death from cardiovascular events. Based on current data, clinicians should consider oral semaglutide for type 2 diabetes management., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Aims: Patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) frequently have difficult-to-control hypertension. We examined the effect of neprilysin inhibition on 'apparent resistant hypertension' in patients with HFpEF in the PARAGON-HF trial, which compared the effect of sacubitril-valsartan with valsartan., Methods and Results: In this post hoc analysis, patients were categorized according to systolic blood pressure at the end of the valsartan run-in (n = 4795). 'Apparent resistant hypertension' was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg (≥135 mmHg if diabetes) despite treatment with valsartan, a calcium channel blocker, and a diuretic. 'Apparent mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA)-resistant' hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg (≥135 mmHg if diabetes) despite the above treatments and an MRA. The primary outcome in the PARAGON-HF trial was a composite of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. We examined clinical endpoints and the safety of sacubitril-valsartan according to the hypertension category. We also examined reductions in blood pressure from the end of valsartan run-in to Weeks 4 and 16 after randomization. Overall, 731 patients (15.2%) had apparent resistant hypertension and 135 (2.8%) had apparent MRA-resistant hypertension. The rate of the primary outcome was higher in patients with apparent resistant hypertension [17.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 15.6-19.1 per 100 person-years] compared to those with a controlled systolic blood pressure (13.4; 12.7-14.3 per 100 person-years), with an adjusted rate ratio of 1.28 (95% CI 1.05-1.57). The reduction in systolic blood pressure at Weeks 4 and 16, respectively, was greater with sacubitril-valsartan vs. valsartan in patients with apparent resistant hypertension [-4.8 (-7.0 to -2.5) and 3.9 (-6.6 to -1.3) mmHg] and apparent MRA-resistant hypertension [-8.8 (-14.0 to -3.5) and -6.3 (-12.5 to -0.1) mmHg]. The proportion of patients with apparent resistant hypertension achieving a controlled systolic blood pressure by Week 16 was 47.9% in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 34.3% in the valsartan group [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.78, 95% CI 1.30-2.43]. In patients with apparent MRA-resistant hypertension, the respective proportions were 43.6% vs. 28.4% (adjusted OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.18-5.89)., Conclusion: Sacubitril-valsartan may be useful in treating apparent resistant hypertension in patients with HFpEF, even in those who continue to have an elevated blood pressure despite treatment with at least four antihypertensive drug classes, including an MRA., Clinical Trial Registration: PARAGON-HF: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01920711., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

This manuscript summarizes the results of the consensus meeting composed of hematologists and cardiologists to establish recommendations for the prevention and follow-up of cardiovascular (CV) risk in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) treated with BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) from the point of view of clinical practice and from the perspective of hematology consultation. In the first medical appointment, the CV risk factors should be identified to perform the baseline risk stratification, based on the Brazilian Guideline of Dyslipidemia and Atherosclerosis Prevention Update (risk levels: very high, high, intermediate and low). Once stratified, the treatment of the CV risk factors should be administered. If the patient presents risk factors, such as hypertension, diabetes, renal disease, smoking and hypercholesterolemia, the evaluation and initial treatment may be done by the hematologist, being an option the request for evaluation by a specialist. If the patient has a history of previous CV disease, we recommend referral to a specialist. As the CV risk score is dynamic and the control of risk factors can reduce the patient risk, this expert consensus recommends that the re-evaluation of the CV risk after the baseline should be performed at 3 months, 6 months and 12 months. After this period, it should be done annually and, for specific patients, at the clinician's discretion. The evaluation of the baseline CV risk and the safe administration of a TKI allow the patient to benefit from the maximum treatment, avoiding unwanted effects., (Copyright © 2020 Associação Brasileira de Hematologia, Hemoterapia e Terapia Celular. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

The efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in patients with bioprosthetic mitral valves and atrial fibrillation or flutter remain uncertain. DESIGN: RIVER was an academic-led, multicenter, open-label, randomized, non-inferiority trial with blinded outcome adjudication that enrolled 1005 patients from 49 sites in Brazil. Patients with a bioprosthetic mitral valve and atrial fibrillation or flutter were randomly assigned (1:1) to rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (15 mg in those with creatinine clearance <50 mL/min) or dose-adjusted warfarin (target international normalized ratio 2.0-30.); the follow-up period was 12 months. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, transient ischemic attack, major bleeding, valve thrombosis, systemic embolism, or hospitalization for heart failure. Secondary outcomes included individual components of the primary composite outcome, bleeding events, and venous thromboembolism. SUMMARY: RIVER represents the largest trial specifically designed to assess the efficacy and safety of a direct oral anticoagulant in patients with bioprosthetic mitral valves and atrial fibrillation or flutter. The results of this trial can inform clinical practice and international guidelines., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The effects of rivaroxaban in patients with atrial fibrillation and a bioprosthetic mitral valve remain uncertain., Methods: In this randomized trial, we compared rivaroxaban (20 mg once daily) with dose-adjusted warfarin (target international normalized ratio, 2.0 to 3.0) in patients with atrial fibrillation and a bioprosthetic mitral valve. The primary outcome was a composite of death, major cardiovascular events (stroke, transient ischemic attack, systemic embolism, valve thrombosis, or hospitalization for heart failure), or major bleeding at 12 months., Results: A total of 1005 patients were enrolled at 49 sites in Brazil. A primary-outcome event occurred at a mean of 347.5 days in the rivaroxaban group and 340.1 days in the warfarin group (difference calculated as restricted mean survival time, 7.4 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.4 to 16.3; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Death from cardiovascular causes or thromboembolic events occurred in 17 patients (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 26 (5.1%) in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.20). The incidence of stroke was 0.6% in the rivaroxaban group and 2.4% in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.88). Major bleeding occurred in 7 patients (1.4%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 13 (2.6%) in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.21 to 1.35). The frequency of other serious adverse events was similar in the two groups., Conclusions: In patients with atrial fibrillation and a bioprosthetic mitral valve, rivaroxaban was noninferior to warfarin with respect to the mean time until the primary outcome of death, major cardiovascular events, or major bleeding at 12 months. (Funded by PROADI-SUS and Bayer; RIVER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02303795.)., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Real-world data from different regions are needed to support the external validity of controlled trials and assess the impact of new oral anticoagulants (NOAC) in clinical practice., Methods: "GLORIA-AF" is a large, ongoing, multicenter, global, prospective registry program in patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) at risk of stroke. Newly diagnosed patients with NVAF (within 4.5 months) and a CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score ≥ 1 were consecutively enrolled. The study objective was to estimate the incidence rate of stroke and major bleeding after a two year follow up of patients on dabigatran that participated in the "GLORIA-AF" study (Phase II) in Latin America., Results: Latin America included 378 eligible patients that received dabigatran in eight countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Perú, and Venezuela): 56.3% were male; mean age was 70.3 ± 10.8 years; 43.4% had paroxysmal AF; 36.0% persistent AF and 20.6% permanent AF. Mean CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score was 3.2 ± 1.4; mean HAS-BLED score was 1.2 ± 0.8. Incidence rates for clinical events after 2-years of follow-up per 100 patient-years were as follows: stroke 0.33 (95% CI: 0.04-1.17), major bleeding 0.49 (95% CI: 0.10-1.42) and all-cause death 4.06 (95% CI: 2.63-6.00). Persistence with dabigatran at 6, 12 and 24 months was 91%, 86%, and 80%, respectively., Conclusion: These regional data shows the sustained safety and effectiveness of dabigatran over two years of follow-up, consistent with already available evidence. An increase in accessibility and incorporation of NOAC to anticoagulant treatment strategies could potentially have a positive impact on AF stroke prevention in Latin America., (© 2020 The Authors.)

Background: In current management of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), cardiovascular and renal prevention have become important targets to be achieved. In this context, a joint panel of four endocrinology societies from Brazil and Portugal was established to develop an evidence-based guideline for treatment of hyperglycemia in T2DM., Methods: MEDLINE (via PubMed) was searched for randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and observational studies related to diabetes treatment. When there was insufficient high-quality evidence, expert opinion was sought. Updated positions on treatment of T2DM patients with heart failure (HF), atherosclerotic CV disease (ASCVD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and patients with no vascular complications were developed. The degree of recommendation and the level of evidence were determined using predefined criteria., Results and Conclusions: In non-pregnant adults, the recommended HbA 1c target is below 7%. Higher levels are recommended in frail older adults and patients at higher risk of hypoglycemia. Lifestyle modification is recommended at all phases of treatment. Metformin is the first choice when HbA 1c is 6.5-7.5%. When HbA 1c is 7.5-9.0%, dual therapy with metformin plus an SGLT2i and/or GLP- 1 RA (first-line antidiabetic agents, AD1) is recommended due to cardiovascular and renal benefits. If an AD1 is unaffordable, other antidiabetic drugs (AD) may be used. Triple or quadruple therapy should be considered when HbA 1c remains above target. In patients with clinical or subclinical atherosclerosis, the combination of one AD1 plus metformin is the recommended first-line therapy to reduce cardiovascular events and improve blood glucose control. In stable heart failure with low ejection fraction (< 40%) and glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) > 30 mL/min/1.73 m 2 , metformin plus an SGLT-2i is recommended to reduce cardiovascular mortality and heart failure hospitalizations and improve blood glucose control. In patients with diabetes-associated chronic kidney disease (CKD) (eGFR 30-60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 or eGFR 30-90 mL/min/1.73 m 2 with albuminuria > 30 mg/g), the combination of metformin and an SGLT2i is recommended to attenuate loss of renal function, reduce albuminuria and improve blood glucose control. In patients with severe renal failure, insulin-based therapy is recommended to improve blood glucose control. Alternatively, GLP- 1 RA, DPP4i, gliclazide MR and pioglitazone may be considered to reduce albuminuria. In conclusion, the current evidence supports individualizing anti-hyperglycemic treatment for T2DM., Competing Interests: Competing interestsMarcello Casaccia Bertoluci: has received grants and fees from Astra-Zeneca, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, and Amgen. João Eduardo Nunes Salles: has received speaker’s fees and sat on boards for Abbott Nutrition, Abbott ADC, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boeringher Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, and Novo Nordisk. José Silva-Nunes: has received research support or honoraria for consultancy or training activities from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bial, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly & Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Medinfar, Merck SA, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, and Tecnimede. Hermelinda Cordeiro Pedrosa: sits on an advisory board for Roche and has received support for participation in scientific conferences from AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, and Servier. Rodrigo Oliveira Moreira: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Merck Serono, Servier, Takeda, Libbs, Sanofi-Aventis. Rui Manuel Calado da Silva Duarte: has received research grants and/or honoraria as a consultant, member of advisory board(s), or speaker from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Medinfar, MSD, Novartis, Novo-Nordisk, Tecnimede, and Sanofi. Davide Mauricio da Costa Carvalho: has sat on advisory boards and is speaker for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, and Sanofi. Fábio Rogério Trujilho: has received speaker’s fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Lilly, Eurofarma, NovoNordisk, Sanofi, Servier, and Takeda. João Filipe Cancela dos Santos Raposo: has received speaker’s fees from or sat on advisory boards for Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Abbott, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Erika Bezerra Parente: has received speaker’s fees from Sanofi, Abbott, and Eli Lilly; sits on the advisory board of Sanofi. Fernando Valente: NovoNordisk, AstraZeneca. Fábio Ferreira de Moura: has received speaker’s fees and/or support for participation in scientific conferences from Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Alexandre Hohl: has served as a scientific consultant for AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Miguel Melo: has consulting relationships with Bial and has participated in advisory panels and presented lectures for: Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bial, Boehringer Ingelheim, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, NovoNordisk, Sanofi. Francisco Garcia Pestana Araujo: has received speaker’s fees from and/or served as an investigator in trials sponsored by Astra, Lilly, Medinfar, MSD, Tecninfar. Rosa Maria Monteiro Castro de Araújo Principe: has served as a clinical investigator in trials sponsored by Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and Sanofi. Adriana Costa e Forti: has received clinical research grants and/or support for participation in scientific conferences from AstraZeneca, Boehringer, Lilly, MSD, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Takeda. Cynthia Melissa Valerio: has received clinical research grants, speaker’s fees, and/or support for participation in scientific conferences from Novo Nordisk, Takeda, and Novartis. João Manuel Sequeira Duarte: has received grants and fees as consultant, speaker and investigator in clinical trials from Sanofi, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mundipharma, MSD, Tecnimed, and Bial. Melanie Rodacki: has received event sponsorship and speaker’s fees from Novo Nordisk, Abbott, and Sanofi. Pedro Manuel Patricio de Matos: has sat on advisory boards for MSD and AstraZeneca, and has received honoraria and research support from MSD, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Abbott, and Bayer AG. Pedro Carneiro de Melo Pereira de Magalhães: has served as principal investigator in clinical trials sponsored by Bayer Pharma AG and Novo Nordisk; sits on advisory or expert boards for AstraZeneca; and has received support for participation in scientific conferences from Bial, Medinfar, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi. Rosângela Roginski Réa: has received clinical research grants, speaker’s fees, and/or support for participation in scientific conferences from AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Takeda. Roberto Tadeu Barcellos Betti, Patrícia Quadros Branco, Rosane Kupfer, Thaisa Dourado Guedes Trujilho, Maria Helane Costa Gurgel Castelo, Cristiane Bauermann Leitão, Hélder José Ferreira, José Francisco Kerr Saraiva, Mariana Pereira Monteiro, Lana Catani Ferreira Pinto declare no conflicts of interest., (© The Author(s) 2020.)

Background: The efficacy of ticagrelor in the long-term post-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with fibrinolytic therapy remains uncertain., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of ticagrelor when compared with clopidogrel in STEMI patients treated with fibrinolytic therapy., Methods: This international, multicenter, randomized, open-label with blinded endpoint adjudication trial enrolled 3,799 patients (age <75 years) with STEMI receiving fibrinolytic therapy. Patients were randomized to ticagrelor (180-mg loading dose, 90 mg twice daily thereafter) or clopidogrel (300- to 600-mg loading dose, 75 mg daily thereafter). The key outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and the same composite outcome with the addition of severe recurrent ischemia, transient ischemic attack, or other arterial thrombotic events at 12 months., Results: The combined outcome of cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 129 of 1,913 patients (6.7%) receiving ticagrelor and in 137 of 1,886 patients (7.3%) receiving clopidogrel (hazard ratio: 0.93; 95% confidence interval: 0.73 to 1.18; p = 0.53). The composite of cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, severe recurrent ischemia, transient ischemic attack, or other arterial thrombotic events occurred in 153 of 1,913 patients (8.0%) treated with ticagrelor and in 171 of 1,886 patients (9.1%) receiving clopidogrel (hazard ratio: 0.88; 95% confidence interval: 0.71 to 1.09; p = 0.25). The rates of major, fatal, and intracranial bleeding were similar between the ticagrelor and clopidogrel groups., Conclusion: Among patients age <75 years with STEMI, administration of ticagrelor after fibrinolytic therapy did not significantly reduce the frequency of cardiovascular events when compared with clopidogrel. (Ticagrelor in Patients With ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction Treated With Pharmacological Thrombolysis [TREAT]; NCT02298088)., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Studies have found that patients at high cardiovascular risk often fail to receive evidence-based therapies in community practice., Objective: To evaluate whether a multifaceted quality improvement intervention can improve the prescription of evidence-based therapies., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this 2-arm cluster randomized clinical trial, patients with established atherothrombotic disease from 40 public and private outpatient clinics (clusters) in Brazil were studied. Patients were recruited from August 2016 to August 2017, with follow-up to August 2018. Data were analyzed in September 2018., Interventions: Case management, audit and feedback reports, and distribution of educational materials (to health care professionals and patients) vs routine practice., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was prescription of evidence-based therapies (ie, statins, antiplatelet therapy, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers) using the all-or-none approach at 12 months after the intervention period in patients without contraindications., Results: Of the 1619 included patients, 1029 (63.6%) were male, 1327 (82.0%) had coronary artery disease (843 [52.1%] with prior acute myocardial infarction), 355 (21.9%) had prior ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, and 197 (12.2%) had peripheral vascular disease, and the mean (SD) age was 65.6 (10.5) years. Among randomized clusters, 30 (75%) were cardiology sites, 6 (15%) were primary care units, and 26 (65%) were teaching institutions. Among eligible patients, those in intervention clusters were more likely to receive a prescription of evidence-based therapies than those in control clusters (73.5% [515 of 701] vs 58.7% [493 of 840]; odds ratio, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.14-4.65). There were no differences between the intervention and control groups with regards to risk factor control (ie, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, or diabetes). Rates of education for smoking cessation were higher among current smokers in the intervention group than in the control group (51.9% [364 of 701] vs 18.2% [153 of 840]; odds ratio, 11.24; 95% CI, 2.20-57.43). The rate of cardiovascular mortality, acute myocardial infarction, and stroke was 2.6% for patients from intervention clusters and 3.4% for those in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.43-1.34)., Conclusions and Relevance: Among Brazilian patients at high cardiovascular risk, a quality improvement intervention resulted in improved prescription of evidence-based therapies., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02851732.

Following publication of the original article [1], based on the authors review, the GLP1 receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes published in Cardiovascular Diabetology, a meta-analysis of GLP-1 and non-GLP-1 based therapies was performed on cardiovascular outcomes.

Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) have a substantial risk of developing cardiovascular disease. The strong connection between the severity of hyperglycaemia, metabolic changes secondary to T2DM and vascular damage increases the risk of macrovascular complications. There is a challenging demand for the development of drugs that control hyperglycaemia and influence other metabolic risk factors to improve cardiovascular outcomes such as cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina and heart failure (major adverse cardiovascular events). In recent years, introduction of the new drug class of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) has changed the treatment landscape as GLP-1RAs have become well-established therapies in T2DM. The benefits of GLP-1RAs are derived from their pleiotropic effects, which include appetite control, glucose-dependent secretion of insulin and inhibition of glucagon secretion. Importantly, their beneficial effects extend to the cardiovascular system. Large clinical trials have evaluated the cardiovascular effects of GLP-1RAs in patients with T2DM and elevated risk of cardiovascular disease and the results are very promising. However, important aspects still require elucidation, such as the specific mechanisms involved in the cardioprotective effects of these drugs. Careful interpretation is necessary because of the heterogeneity across the trials concerning the definition of cardiovascular risk or cardiovascular disease, baseline characteristics, routine care and event rates. The aim of this review is to describe the main clinical aspects of the GLP-1RAs, compare them using data from both the mechanistic and randomized controlled trials and discuss potential reasons for improved cardiovascular outcomes observed in these trials. This review may help clinicians to decide which treatment is most appropriate in reducing cardiovascular risk in patients with T2DM.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an established risk factor for a first or recurrent stroke. Despite proven efficacy in preventing stroke in patients with AF, warfarin is underused, partly due to safety concerns. Recent randomized trials have shown that non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) such as dabigatran (a direct thrombin inhibitor) and apixaban, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban (factor Xa inhibitors) are not only non-inferior or superior to warfarin but also demonstrate a decreased risk of cerebrovascular bleeding among patients with AF and moderate to high risk of stroke. Additionally, NOACs have an advantage of requiring no monitoring of the international normalized ratio compared with warfarin. This review summarizes the published literature on NOACs for the primary and secondary prevention of ischemic strokes, with an emphasis on the expected absolute benefits from the introduction of such agents. As compared with warfarin, NOACs significantly reduce the risk of hemorrhagic stroke, and only dabigatran (150 mg twice daily) was found to significantly reduce the risk of ischemic stroke. However, measures of relative benefits from medical interventions do not immediately provide the estimated benefit to be derived from an individual patient, something best done by considering the expected absolute benefit. The number needed to treat (NNT) is presented for various outcomes in the phase 3 trials of NOACs. Despite the important progress achieved with the introduction of NOACs, the availability of at least four agents with different efficacy and safety performances in comparison with warfarin prompts the question of whether any of these agents is preferable to another. It is hoped that future studies on the efficacy, safety, and economic performance of NOACs will further allow for rational choices within this important therapeutic class. Meanwhile, the NNT may be a valid metric to be considered by clinicians faced with the need to make such choices.

Importance: The bleeding safety of ticagrelor in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with fibrinolytic therapy remains uncertain., Objective: To evaluate the short-term safety of ticagrelor when compared with clopidogrel in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with fibrinolytic therapy., Design, Setting and Participants: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label with blinded end point adjudication trial that enrolled 3799 patients (younger than 75 years) with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction receiving fibrinolytic therapy in 152 sites from 10 countries from November 2015 through November 2017. The prespecified upper boundary for noninferiority for bleeding was an absolute margin of 1.0%., Interventions: Patients were randomized to ticagrelor (180-mg loading dose, 90 mg twice daily thereafter) or clopidogrel (300-mg to 600-mg loading dose, 75 mg daily thereafter). Patients were randomized with a median of 11.4 hours after fibrinolysis, and 90% were pretreated with clopidogrel., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) major bleeding through 30 days., Results: The mean (SD) age was 58.0 (9.5) years, 2928 of 3799 patients (77.1%) were men, and 2177 of 3799 patients (57.3%) were white. At 30 days, TIMI major bleeding had occurred in 14 of 1913 patients (0.73%) receiving ticagrelor and in 13 of 1886 patients (0.69%) receiving clopidogrel (absolute difference, 0.04%; 95% CI, -0.49% to 0.58%; P < .001 for noninferiority). Major bleeding defined by the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes criteria and by the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 to 5 bleeding occurred in 23 patients (1.20%) in the ticagrelor group and in 26 patients (1.38%) in the clopidogrel group (absolute difference, -0.18%; 95% CI, -0.89% to 0.54; P = .001 for noninferiority). The rates of fatal (0.16% vs 0.11%; P = .67) and intracranial bleeding (0.42% vs 0.37%; P = .82) were similar between the ticagrelor and clopidogrel groups, respectively. Minor and minimal bleeding were more common with ticagrelor than with clopidogrel. The composite of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 76 patients (4.0%) treated with ticagrelor and in 82 patients (4.3%) receiving clopidogrel (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.67-1.25; P = .57)., Conclusions and Relevance: In patients younger than 75 years with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, delayed administration of ticagrelor after fibrinolytic therapy was noninferior to clopidogrel for TIMI major bleeding at 30 days., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02298088.

Population assessment of effective blood pressure (BP) control is fundamental for reducing the global burden of hypertension, especially in low- and middle-income countries. The authors evaluated the effectiveness of BP control and determined independent predictors associated with effective control among patients with hypertension on drug treatment in a large cross-sectional study performed in two metropolitan areas in Brazil's southeast region. A total of 43 647 patients taking antihypertensive treatment were identified. Less than half of the patients (40.9%) had controlled BP (systolic BP <140 mm Hg and diastolic BP <90 mm Hg). Independent predictors of BP control were age, eating fruit daily, physical activity, previous cardiovascular disease, male sex, diabetes mellitus, ethnicity, and obesity. Simple variables associated with BP control may be utilized for knowledge translation strategies aiming to reduce the burden of hypertension., (©2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Since the first position statement on diabetes and cardiovascular prevention published in 2014 by the Brazilian Diabetes Society, the current view on primary and secondary prevention in diabetes has evolved as a result of new approaches on cardiovascular risk stratification, new cholesterol lowering drugs, and new anti-hyperglycemic drugs. Importantly, a pattern of risk heterogeneity has emerged, showing that not all diabetic patients are at high or very high risk. In fact, most younger patients who have no overt cardiovascular risk factors may be more adequately classified as being at intermediate or even low cardiovascular risk. Thus, there is a need for cardiovascular risk stratification in patients with diabetes. The present panel reviews the best current evidence and proposes a practical risk-based approach on treatment for patients with diabetes., Main Body: The Brazilian Diabetes Society, the Brazilian Society of Cardiology, and the Brazilian Endocrinology and Metabolism Society gathered to form an expert panel including 28 cardiologists and endocrinologists to review the best available evidence and to draft up-to-date an evidence-based guideline with practical recommendations for risk stratification and prevention of cardiovascular disease in diabetes. The guideline includes 59 recommendations covering: (1) the impact of new anti-hyperglycemic drugs and new lipid lowering drugs on cardiovascular risk; (2) a guide to statin use, including new definitions of LDL-cholesterol and in non-HDL-cholesterol targets; (3) evaluation of silent myocardial ischemia and subclinical atherosclerosis in patients with diabetes; (4) hypertension treatment; and (5) the use of antiplatelet therapy., Conclusions: Diabetes is a heterogeneous disease. Although cardiovascular risk is increased in most patients, those without risk factors or evidence of sub-clinical atherosclerosis are at a lower risk. Optimal management must rely on an approach that will cover both cardiovascular disease prevention in individuals in the highest risk as well as protection from overtreatment in those at lower risk. Thus, cardiovascular prevention strategies should be individualized according to cardiovascular risk while intensification of treatment should focus on those at higher risk.