Search

Aims: To explore the relationship between weight loss and insulin sensitivity in response to tirzepatide or semaglutide., Materials and Methods: We conducted a post hoc exploratory analysis of a 28-week, double-blind, randomized trial in people with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin, randomized to tirzepatide 15 mg, semaglutide 1 mg or placebo. We evaluated the relationship between change in body weight and change in insulin sensitivity determined from hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp (M value), or from mixed-meal tolerance testing (Matsuda index)., Results: Tirzepatide was associated with a greater improvement than semaglutide in insulin sensitivity assessed using hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamps (p < 0.001). With tirzepatide, improvements in insulin sensitivity were associated with percent change in weight (R = -0.656, p < 0.0001). With semaglutide, change in insulin sensitivity was less strongly correlated with percent change in weight (R = -0.268, p = 0.0820; p = 0.0242 vs. tirzepatide). In regression analyses, the slope of the relationship between change in M value and change in weight was statistically different between semaglutide and tirzepatide (p = 0.0461). These relationships were also assessed using the Matsuda index as the metric of insulin sensitivity, and using change in fat mass as the determinant of change in insulin sensitivity., Conclusions: Improvement in insulin sensitivity was proportional to weight and fat loss, with greater strength of association with tirzepatide. In regression analysis, tirzepatide was associated with greater improvement in insulin sensitivity per unit weight loss than semaglutide. The greater improvement in insulin sensitivity following treatment with tirzepatide was not simply attributable to greater weight or fat loss., (© 2025 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Tirzepatide, a once-weekly GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist, reduces blood glucose and body weight in people with type 2 diabetes. The cardiovascular (CV) safety and efficacy of tirzepatide have not been definitively assessed in a cardiovascular outcomes trial., Methods: Tirzepatide is being studied in a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled CV outcomes trial. People with type 2 diabetes aged ≥40 years, with established atherosclerotic CV disease, HbA1c ≥7% to ≤10.5%, and body mass index ≥25 kg/m 2 were randomized 1:1 to once weekly subcutaneous injection of either tirzepatide up to 15 mg or dulaglutide 1.5 mg. The primary outcome is time to first occurrence of any major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), defined as CV death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The trial is event-driven and planned to continue until ≥1,615 participants experience an adjudication-confirmed component of MACE. The primary analysis is noninferiority for time to first MACE of tirzepatide vs dulaglutide by demonstrating an upper confidence limit <1.05, which will also confirm superiority vs a putative placebo, and also to determine whether tirzepatide produces a greater CV benefit than dulaglutide (superiority analysis)., Results: Over 2 years, 13,299 people at 640 sites in 30 countries across all world regions were randomized. The mean age of randomized participants at baseline was 64.1 years, diabetes duration 14.7 years, HbA1c 8.4%, and BMI 32.6 kg/m 2 . Overall, 65.0% had coronary disease, of whom 47.3% reported prior myocardial infarction and 57.4% had prior coronary revascularization. 19.1% of participants had a prior stroke and 25.3% had peripheral artery disease. The trial is fully recruited and ongoing., Conclusion: SURPASS-CVOT will provide definitive evidence as to the CV safety and efficacy of tirzepatide as compared with dulaglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist with established CV benefit., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest SJN reports grants or contracts from Amgen, Anthera Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Cerenis Therapeutics, CSL Behring, Eli Lilly and Company, Esperion Therapeutics, Infraredx, New Amsterdam Pharma, Novartis, Resverlogix, and Sanofi Regeneron; consulting fees from Akcea Therapeutics, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, Eli Lilly and Company, Esperion Therapeutics, Kowa, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, Takeda, Vaxxinity, Silence Therapeutics, and CSL Sequiris; is a named inventor on a patent planned, issued or pending with Amgen; and is President of Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand. DLB reports grants or contracts from Abbott, Acesion Pharma, Afimmune, Aker Biomarine, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beren, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Chiesi, Cincor, Cleerly, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Faraday Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Garmin, HLS Therapeutics, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Janssen, Javelin, Lexicon, Eli Lilly and Company, Medtronic, Merck, Moderna, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Owkin, Pfizer Inc, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Recardio, Regeneron, Reid Hoffman Foundation, Roche, Sanofi, Stasys, Synaptic, The Medicines Company, Youngene, 89bio, Otsuka, and Alnylam; royalties from Elsevier; consulting fees from Broadview Ventures, Hims, and McKinsey; payment or honoraria from American College of Cardiology, Baim Institute for Clinical Research, Belvoir Publications, Boston Scientific, Cleveland Clinic, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Novartis, Population Health Research Institute, Rutgers University, Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge Translation Research Group, Cowen and Company, HMP Global, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, K2P, Level Ex, Medtelligence/ReachMD, MJH Life Sciences, Oakstone CME, Piper Sandler, Population Health Research Institute, Slack Publications, WebMD, Wiley, Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care, and CSL Behring; payment for expert testimony from Arnold and Porter law firm; meeting/travel support from American College of Cardiology, Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care, and American Heart Association; a pending patent for Sotagliflozin; participation on data monitoring or advisory boards for Acesion Pharma, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, AngioWave, Baim Institute, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Cleveland Clinic, Contego Medical, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, Janssen, Level Ex, Mayo Clinic, Medscape Cardiology, Merck, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regado Biosciences, Population Health Research Institute, and Stasys; leadership or fiduciary roles with American College of Cardiology, AngioWave, Boston VA Research Institute, Bristol Myers Squibb, DRS.LINQ, High Enroll, Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care, TobeSoft, and AHA NYC Chapter; stock or stock options in AngioWave, Bristol Myers Squibb, DRS.LINQ, and High Enroll; and other financial or non-financial interests in Clinical Cardiology (Deputy Editor), NCDR-ACTION Registry Steering Committee (Chair), American Heart Association Quality Oversight Committee (Chair), VA CART Research and Publications Committee (Chair), Contego Medical (Chair, PERFORMANCE 2), conducts unfunded research with FlowCo and Takeda, and is site co-investigator for Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, St. Jude Medical (now Abbott), Phillips SpectraWAVE, Svelte, and Vascular Solutions. JBB reports grant support from Dexcom, Insulet, MannKind, NovaTarg, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Tolerion, and vTv Therapeutics; consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Alkahest, Altimmune, Anji, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biomea Fusion Inc, Boehringer Ingelheim, CeQur, Cirius Therapeutics Inc, Corcept Therapeutics, CultHealth, Eli Lilly and Company, embecta, GentiBio, Glycadia, Glyscend, Janssen, Mellitus Health, Metsera, Moderna, Pendulum Therapeutics, Praetego, Sanofi, Stability Health, Tandem, Terns Inc, Valo, and Zealand Pharma; payment for expert testimony from Medtronic; participation on data monitoring or advisory boards for Alkahest, Altimmune, AstraZeneca, and Tandem; a leadership or fiduciary role with Association of Clinical and Translational Science; stock or stock options in Glyscend, Mellitus Health, Pendulum Therapeutics, PhaseBio, Praetego and Stability Health; and other financial or other non-financial interests in Dasman Diabetes Center, Kuwait City (scientific advisory board), and ReachMD and Mediflix (audiovisual content development). SDP reports consultation for Abbott, Amarin, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Hengrui Pharmaceuticals, Menarini International, MSD, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi; grant support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim; and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Laboratori Guidotti, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.. SEK reports consulting fees from Anji Pharamceuticals, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck, and Novo Nordisk; and payment or honoraria from Novo Nordisk. AML reports grants or contracts from Eli Lilly and Company; consulting fees from Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk, and Novartis; and meeting/travel support from Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly and Company. DKM reports research support for clinical trials leadership from Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck & Co, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Esperion, Lilly USA, Lexicon, CSL Behring, and New Amsterdam; and honoraria for consultancy from Lilly USA, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck & Co, Novo Nordisk, Applied Therapeutics, Altimmune, CSL Behring, Bayer, and Intercept. MAN reports grants or contracts from Merck, Sharp & Dohme; consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Berlin-Chemie/Menarini, Eli Lilly and Company, Medtronic, Merck, Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regor, Structure Therapeutics (Gasherbrum), and Sun Pharma; payment or honoraria from Berlin-Chemie/Menarini, Eli Lilly and Company, Medical Learning Institute, Medscape, Merck, Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma; and participation on a data monitoring or advisory board with Inventiva. SEN reports that the Cleveland Clinic Center for Clinical Research has received funding to perform clinical trials from Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Arrowhead, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, MyoKardia, New Amsterdam Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and Silence Therapeutics. NS reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis; a grant from Roche Diagnostics; and personal fees from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Eli Lilly and Company, Hanmi Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi. BZ reports consulting fees from Eli Lilly and Company. SZ reports grants or contracts from NHMRC, Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care, JDRF Centre of Excellence, and MRFF; consulting fees from Eli Lilly Australia, Boehringer-Ingelheim, MSD Australia, Astra Zeneca, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi; payment or honoraria from Heart Foundation; meeting/travel support from Australian Diabetes Society 2022, International Diabetes Federation 2022, and KDIGO Implementation Summit on Diabetes Management in CKD; and leadership or fiduciary roles with Melanoma and Skin Cancer Trials Ltd., Australian Clinical Trials Alliance, and Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine. JB reports consulting fees from Eli Lilly and Company, ReCor, and Medtronic; and participation on advisory boards for ReCor, Medtronic, and Eli Lilly and Company. AB, DM, HN, IP, GW, and RJW are employees and shareholders in Eli Lilly and Company. DD reports consulting fees from Eli Lilly and Company, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and Structure Therapeutics; payment or honoraria from University of Chicago, University of Iowa, and Korean Diabetes Association; meeting/travel support from American Diabetes Association; and stock or stock options in MBX Biosciences., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Tirzepatide is a novel single-molecule glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide/glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, which demonstrated unprecedented improvements in glycemic control and body weight reduction, in the SURPASS phase 3 program. In this exploratory analysis, we aimed to characterize tirzepatide-treated participants who achieved HbA1c <5.7% and evaluate changes in clinical markers associated with long-term cardiometabolic health., Research Design and Methods: Baseline characteristics and change from baseline to week 40 for several efficacy and safety parameters were analyzed according to HbA1c attainment category (<5.7%, 5.7-6.5%, and >6.5%) using descriptive statistics in participants taking ≥75% of treatment doses, without rescue medication, in the SURPASS 1-4 trials (N = 3,229). Logistic regression models with tirzepatide doses adjusted as a covariate were used to obtain odds ratios and assess the impact of patient characteristics achieving an HbA1c <5.7%., Results: Tirzepatide-treated participants who achieved HbA1c <5.7% were slightly younger, with a shorter duration of diabetes and lower HbA1c value at baseline compared with those who did not achieve HbA1c <5.7%. In addition, they showed greater improvements in HbA1c, body weight, waist circumference, blood pressure, liver enzymes, and lipid parameters without increasing hypoglycemia risk., Conclusions: Normoglycemia was unprecedently achieved in a significant proportion of participants in the SURPASS clinical program, without increasing hypoglycemia risk, and was associated with an overall improvement in metabolic health., (© 2023 by the American Diabetes Association.)

In late 2018, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) outlined a framework for evaluating the possible use of real-world evidence (RWE) to support regulatory decision-making. This framework was created to facilitate studies that would generate high-quality RWE, including pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs), which are randomized trials designed to inform clinical or policy decisions by assessing the real-world effectiveness of an intervention. There is general agreement among experts that the use of existing healthcare and patient-generated data holds promise for making randomized trials more efficient, less costly, and more generalizable. Yet the benefits of relying on real-world data sources must be weighed against difficulties with ensuring data integrity and completeness. Additionally, appropriately monitoring patient safety in randomized trials of new drugs using healthcare system data that might not be available in real time can be quite difficult. Recognizing that these and other concerns are critical to the development and acceptability of PCTs, a group of stakeholders from academia, industry, professional organizations, regulatory bodies, government agencies, and patient advocates discussed a path forward for PCT growth and sustainability at a think tank meeting entitled "Monitoring and Analyzing Data from Pragmatic Streamlined Randomized Clinical Trials," which took place in January 2019 (Washington, DC). The goals of this meeting were to: (1) evaluate study design and methodological options specific to PCTs that have the potential to yield high-quality evidence; (2) discuss best practices to ensure data quality in PCTs; and (3) identify appropriate methods for study monitoring. Proceedings from the think tank meeting are summarized in this manuscript.

Background: High-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels are inversely associated with cardiovascular risk. Cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibition with evacetrapib results in a marked increase in HDL and reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels. We evaluated the impact of treatment with evacetrapib versus placebo in the subset of 8236 patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) enrolled in the Assessment of Clinical Effects of Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein Inhibition with Evacetrapib in Patients at a High Risk for Vascular Outcomes trial., Methods and Results: Time to first occurrence of any component of the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization, and hospitalization for unstable angina was compared among patients with DM randomized to treatment with evacetrapib (n=4127) or placebo (n=4109) over a median of 26 months of follow-up. The mean baseline LDL at initiation was 80 mg/dL with a mean baseline HDL of 44 mg/dL. In patients with DM, evacetrapib resulted in a 131% mean increase in HDL levels and a 32% mean decrease in LDL at 3 months that was sustained during the course of the trial. At 6 months, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels were lower with evacetrapib than placebo (7.08% vs 7.15%, p=0.023). Composite event rates were higher in patients with DM than without DM (Kaplan-Meier estimates: 15.2% vs 10.6%, HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.64, p<0.001). In the DM group, event rates for the composite endpoint (14.5% evacetrapib vs 16% placebo, HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07, p=0.38) and individual components of the composite were similar for both evacetrapib and placebo groups. No significant treatment interaction between treatment assignment and diabetes status was noted., Conclusion: Despite a favorable increase in HDL, and decreases in LDL and HbA1c levels in patients with DM, we observed no benefits of treatment with evacetrapib on prespecified clinical outcomes in this high-risk population., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background The contemporary impact of glycemic control on patients with diabetes mellitus at high cardiovascular risk remains unclear. We evaluated the utility of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) as a marker of risk on the composite end point of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, and coronary revascularization in an optimally treated population with diabetes mellitus and established coronary artery disease enrolled in the ACCELERATE (Assessment of Clinical Effects of Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein Inhibition With Evacetrapib in Patients at a High Risk for Vascular Outcomes) trial. Methods and Results We included all patients with established diabetes mellitus and measured HbA1c (N=8145) and estimated Kaplan-Meier (KM) events rates, stratified by increasing baseline HbA1c levels censored at 30 months. We then performed a multivariable regression for the primary end point. Increasing baseline HbA1c was strongly associated with the occurrence of the primary end point (KM estimate, 12.6-18.2; P <0.001). Increasing baseline HbA1c was also associated with the triple end point of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and stroke (KM estimate, 7.8-11.3; P =0.003) as well as the individual end points of nonfatal myocardial infarction (KM estimate, 3.1-7.0; P <0.001), hospitalization for unstable angina (KM estimate, 1.8-5.0; P =0.003), and revascularization (KM estimate, 7.3-11.1; P =0.001), although not stroke (KM estimate, 1.4-2.4; P =0.45). The rates of cardiovascular mortality (KM estimate, 2.6-4.3; P =0.21) and all-cause mortality (KM estimate, 4.8-5.9; P =0.21) were similar regardless of baseline HbA1c levels. When adjusting for relevant baseline characteristics, baseline HbA1c was an independent predictor for the primary end point (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11; P =0.003). Conclusions Glycemic control, as measured by HbA1c, remains strongly and independently associated with cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients with diabetes mellitus on statin therapy. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01687998.

Background The failure of cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor torcetrapib was associated with an off-target increase in plasma aldosterone. We sought to evaluate the impact of evacetrapib on plasma aldosterone level and determine the association between plasma aldosterone level and major adverse cardiovascular events among patients with stable high-risk vascular disease enrolled in the ACCELERATE (Assessment of Clinical Effects of Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein Inhibition With Evacetrapib in Patients at a High Risk for Vascular Outcomes) trial. Methods and Results We included all patients with a plasma aldosterone level (N=1624) and determined the impact of evacetrapib exposure compared with placebo on plasma aldosterone levels after 12 months of treatment. Using baseline and postexposure aldosterone levels, hazard ratios for major adverse cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, hospitalization for unstable angina, and revascularization) with increasing quartile of baseline and percentage change in plasma aldosterone level at follow-up were calculated. The average age was 65.2 years, 75.7% were men, 93.7% were hypertensive, 73.3% were diabetic, and 57.6% had a prior myocardial infarction. Baseline plasma aldosterone level (85.2 [43, 150] versus 86.8 [43, 155] pmol/L; P =0.81) and follow-up percentage change (13.6% [-29, 88] versus 17.9% [-24, 87]; P =0.23) were similar between those who received evacetrapib and placebo. During median follow-up of 28 months, major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 263 patients (16.2%). The hazard ratios for increasing quartile of baseline or percentage change in plasma aldosterone level at follow-up were not significant for major adverse cardiovascular events. These findings remained consistent when adjusting for significant characteristics. Conclusions Exposure to evacetrapib did not result in significant change in plasma aldosterone levels compared with placebo. Among patients with stable high-risk vascular disease, plasma aldosterone levels were not a predictor for future cardiovascular events. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01687998.

Background: Despite optimal treatment, type II diabetes mellitus remains associated with an increased risk for future cardiovascular events. We sought to determine the association between baseline fasting plasma insulin levels and major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type II diabetes mellitus and high-risk vascular disease enrolled in the ACCELERATE (Assessment of Clinical Effects of Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein Inhibition with Evacetrapib in Patients at a High Risk for Vascular Outcomes) trial., Methods: We included all patients with type II diabetes mellitus who had a central laboratory measured fasting plasma insulin level drawn at baseline as part of the study protocol. Hazard ratios were generated for the risk of major adverse cardiovascular outcomes (composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina and coronary revascularization) with increasing quartile of baseline fasting plasma insulin level. We then performed a multivariable regression adjusting for significant baseline characteristics., Results: Among 12,092 patients in ACCELERATE, 2042 patients with type II diabetes mellitus had a baseline fasting plasma insulin level drawn. Median follow-up was 28 months. The study population had a mean age of 66.6 years, 79.2% male and 96.2% had established coronary artery disease. During follow-up, major adverse cardiovascular outcomes occurred in 238 patients (11.6%); of these events, 177 were coronary revascularization (8.7%). We observed a statistically significant relationship between rates of revascularization and rising quartile of baseline fasting plasma insulin level which was not noted for the other individual components of major adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Patients with type II diabetes mellitus who underwent revascularization were noted to have significantly higher baseline fasting plasma insulin levels (27.7 vs 21.4 mU/L, p-value = 0.009) although baseline haemoglobin A1c (6.63% vs 6.55%), body mass index (31.5 vs 31.1 kg/m 2 ) and medical therapy were otherwise similar to the group not undergoing revascularization. Following multivariable regression adjusting for significant characteristics including exposure to evacetrapib, the log of baseline fasting plasma insulin level was found to be an independent predictor for major adverse cardiovascular outcomes (hazard ratio = 1.36, 95% confidence interval = 1.09-1.69, p-value = 0.007); this was driven by need for future revascularization (hazard ratio = 1.56, 95% confidence interval = 1.21-2.00, p-value = 0.001)., Conclusion: In a contemporary population of patients with type II diabetes mellitus and high-risk vascular disease on optimum medical therapy, baseline hyperinsulinaemia was an independent predictor for major adverse cardiovascular outcomes and need of future coronary revascularization. These results suggest a pathophysiological link between hyperinsulinaemia and progression of atherosclerotic vascular disease among diabetics.

Background and Aims: The association between gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and subsequent detection of GI cancer in patients using antiplatelet/anticoagulant medications is unclear. We investigated the association between the occurrence of GI bleeding and the detection of GI cancer and assessed whether this association differs in patients treated with clopidogrel or warfarin compared to non-treated patients., Methods: A claims analysis was conducted using the Truven Health MarketScan(®) Research databases. Patients were grouped into the treatment cohort if they received a prescription for clopidogrel or warfarin or into the non-treatment cohort if they did not receive these medications. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for GI cancer diagnosed after GI bleeding., Results: Overall, in the treatment cohort, patients who experienced a GI bleed were 6 times (HR: 5.64, 95% CI, 5.12, 6.21) more likely to be diagnosed with GI cancer compared with those without bleeding. In the non-treatment cohort patients were 13 times (HR: 13.34, 95% CI, 12.21, 14.58) more likely to be diagnosed with GI cancer after GI bleeding. The HRs of GI cancer were higher within 6 months of the first GI bleed and decreased remarkably thereafter., Conclusions: This study suggests that an episode of GI bleeding increased the rates of detection of GI cancers.

Aims: In the TRITON-TIMI 38 trial, greater platelet inhibition with prasugrel reduced the first occurrence of the primary endpoint (cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke) compared with clopidogrel in patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing planned percutaneous coronary intervention. We hypothesized that prasugrel would reduce not only first events but also recurrent primary endpoint events and therefore total events compared with clopidogrel., Methods and Results: Poisson regression analysis was performed to compare the number of occurrences of the primary endpoint between prasugrel and clopidogrel in TRITON-TIMI 38. Landmark analytic methods were used to evaluate the risk of a recurrent primary endpoint event following an initial non-fatal endpoint event. Among patients with an initial non-fatal event, second events were significantly reduced with prasugrel compared to clopidogrel (10.8 vs. 15.4%, HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.46-0.92; P = 0.016), as was CV death following the non-fatal event (3.7 vs. 7.1%, HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.25-0.82; P = 0.008). Overall there was a reduction of 195 total primary efficacy events with prasugrel vs. clopidogrel (rate ratio 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.87; P < 0.001). Recurrent bleeding events occurred infrequently (TIMI major non-CABG bleeds: four with prasugrel and two with clopidogrel). Study drug discontinuation was frequent following the initial major bleeding event (42% of patients discontinued study drug)., Conclusion: While standard statistical analytic techniques for clinical trials censor patients who experience a component of the primary composite endpoint, total cardiovascular events remain important to both patients and clinicians. Prasugrel, a more potent anti-platelet agent, reduced both first and subsequent cardiovascular events compared with clopidogrel in patients with ACS.

Background: The aim of this study was to compare rate of onset, magnitude, and consistency of platelet inhibition after administration of prasugrel or clopidogrel and to relate platelet inhibition to systemic exposure to each active metabolite. Thienopyridines are prodrugs, metabolized in vivo to active metabolites that inhibit the platelet P2Y12 adenosine diphosphate (ADP) receptor., Methods: This was an open-label, 2-way, crossover study that randomized healthy subjects (n = 68) to an oral loading dose (LD) of prasugrel 60 mg or clopidogrel 300 mg. Platelet aggregation response to 5 and 20 micromol/L of ADP was measured by turbidometric aggregometry. Plasma concentrations of the active metabolites of prasugrel and clopidogrel were quantified by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry detection methods., Results: Inhibition of platelet aggregation (IPA) after prasugrel was significantly higher (P < .01) than that after clopidogrel from 15 minutes through 24 hours (5 micromol/L ADP) and from 30 minutes through 24 hours (20 micromol/L ADP). For 20 micromol/L ADP, the median time to reach > or = 20% IPA was 30 minutes for prasugrel and 1.5 hours for clopidogrel (P < .001). The maximum IPA was 84.1% +/- 9.5% with prasugrel versus 48.9% +/- 27.0% with clopidogrel for 5 micromol/L ADP and 78.8% +/- 9.2% versus 35.0% +/- 24.5%, respectively, for 20 micromol/L ADP (P < .001). Response to prasugrel was more consistent compared to clopidogrel (P < .01). The lower IPA response to clopidogrel was associated with lower plasma concentrations of its active metabolite (P < .001)., Conclusions: Prasugrel 60 mg LD results in more rapid, potent, and consistent inhibition of platelet function than clopidogrel 300 mg LD. Lower IPA responses to clopidogrel were associated with lower concentrations of its active metabolite.

Background: Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel is standard for prevention of thrombotic complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Prasugrel is a thienopyridine that is more potent, more rapid in onset, and more consistent in inhibition of platelets than clopidogrel. TRITON-TIMI 38 is designed to compare prasugrel with clopidogrel in moderate to high-risk patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS)., Study Design: TRITON-TIMI 38 is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multinational, clinical trial. Approximately 13,000 patients with moderate to high-risk ACS undergoing PCI (9500 unstable angina/non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [MI], 3500 ST-segment elevation MI) will be randomized to prasugrel 60 mg loading dose followed by 10 mg daily or clopidogrel 300 mg loading dose followed by 75 mg daily for up to 15 months. The primary end point is the time of the first event of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke. Analyses will be performed first in the unstable angina/non-ST-segment elevation MI cohort and, conditionally, on the whole ACS population. Major safety end points include TIMI major and minor bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery., Conclusions: TRITON-TIMI 38 is a phase 3 comparison of prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with moderate to high-risk ACS undergoing PCI. In addition, it is the first large-scale clinical events trial to assess whether a thienopyridine regimen that achieves a higher level of inhibition of platelet aggregation than the standard therapy results in an improvement in clinical outcomes.

Health-care organizations are now moving toward integrated delivery systems to provide high-quality care, as they are being held to an ever-increasing scope of accountabilities. Distributed applications such as telemedicine and electronic patient records (EPR) are seen as key requirements for the future to deliver cost effective and high-quality health-care services. This initiative would provide dynamic environments for health professionals to access patient information and thereby increase the decision-making capacities on patient care procedures. Although telemedicine applications and EPR contribute to the improvement of healthcare services, poor communication mechanisms and practices negatively impact on quality of service (QoS) in teamwork environments of patient care. Awareness and responsiveness are becoming important factors in dynamic group collaborative work environments in healthcare facilities. This paper reports on a detailed case study of group communication patterns in a patient service environment. Further, an ethnographic approach that addresses group communications patterns, identifies tools and techniques in light of Computer-Supported Collaborative Work (CSCW), which requires the application of a number of disciplines including sociology, organizational science, psychology, and computer science. In cooperative work environments, it is important to understand the activities of others for human interaction and communication in general. This is very important for future development of CSCW-based distributed architectures that focus on the challenges of improving QoS in healthcare environments.