Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and survival in pulmonary arterial hypertension

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol(LDL-C) is a well established metabolic marker of cardiovascular risk, however, its role in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) has not been determined. Therefore we assessed whether LDL-C levels are altered in PAH patients, if they are associated with survival in this group and whether pulmonary hypertension (PH) reversal can influence LDL-C levels. Consecutive 46 PAH males and 94 females were age matched with a representative sample of 1168 males and 1245 females, respectively. Cox regression models were used to assess the association between LDL-C and mortality. The effect of PH reversal on LDL-C levels was assessed in 34 patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) undergoing invasive treatment. LDL-C was lower in both PAH (2.6±0.8mmol/l) and CTEPH (2.7±0.7mmol/l) patients when compared to controls (3.2±1.1mmol/l, p<0.001). In PAH patients lower LDL-C significantly predicted death (HR:0.44/1mmol/l, 95%CI:0.26–0.74, p=0.002) after a median follow-up time of 33(21–36) months. In the CTEPH group, LDL-C increased (from 2.6[2.1–3.2] to 4.0[2.8–4.9]mmol/l, p=0.01) in patients with PH reversal but remained unchanged in other patients (2.4[2.2–2.7] vs 2.3[2.1–2.5]mmol/l, p=0.51). We concluded that LDL-C level is low in patients with PAH and is associated with an increased risk of death. Reversal of PH increases LDL-C levels

Effect of B-type natriuretic peptide-guided treatment of chronic heart failure on total mortality and hospitalization: an individual patient meta-analysis

Aims Natriuretic peptide-guided (NP-guided) treatment of heart failure has been tested against standard clinically guided care in multiple studies, but findings have been limited by study size. We sought to perform an individual patient data meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of NP-guided treatment of heart failure on all-cause mortality. Methods and results Eligible randomized clinical trials were identified from searches of Medline and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Clinical Trials Register. The primary pre-specified outcome, all-cause mortality was tested using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included study of origin, age (45%) as covariates. Secondary endpoints included heart failure or cardiovascular hospitalization. Of 11 eligible studies, 9 provided individual patient data and 2 aggregate data. For the primary endpoint individual data from 2000 patients were included, 994 randomized to clinically guided care and 1006 to NP-guided care. All-cause mortality was significantly reduced by NP-guided treatment [hazard ratio = 0.62 (0.45-0.86); P = 0.004] with no heterogeneity between studies or interaction with LVEF. The survival benefit from NP-guided therapy was seen in younger (<75 years) patients [0.62 (0.45-0.85); P = 0.004] but not older (≥75 years) patients [0.98 (0.75-1.27); P = 0.96]. Hospitalization due to heart failure [0.80 (0.67-0.94); P = 0.009] or cardiovascular disease [0.82 (0.67-0.99); P = 0.048] was significantly lower in NP-guided patients with no heterogeneity between studies and no interaction with age or LVEF. Conclusion Natriuretic peptide-guided treatment of heart failure reduces all-cause mortality in patients aged <75 years and overall reduces heart failure and cardiovascular hospitalizatio

Omecamtiv mecarbil in chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, GALACTIC‐HF: baseline characteristics and comparison with contemporary clinical trials

Aims: The safety and efficacy of the novel selective cardiac myosin activator, omecamtiv mecarbil, in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is tested in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC‐HF) trial. Here we describe the baseline characteristics of participants in GALACTIC‐HF and how these compare with other contemporary trials. Methods and Results: Adults with established HFrEF, New York Heart Association functional class (NYHA) ≥ II, EF ≤35%, elevated natriuretic peptides and either current hospitalization for HF or history of hospitalization/ emergency department visit for HF within a year were randomized to either placebo or omecamtiv mecarbil (pharmacokinetic‐guided dosing: 25, 37.5 or 50 mg bid). 8256 patients [male (79%), non‐white (22%), mean age 65 years] were enrolled with a mean EF 27%, ischemic etiology in 54%, NYHA II 53% and III/IV 47%, and median NT‐proBNP 1971 pg/mL. HF therapies at baseline were among the most effectively employed in contemporary HF trials. GALACTIC‐HF randomized patients representative of recent HF registries and trials with substantial numbers of patients also having characteristics understudied in previous trials including more from North America (n = 1386), enrolled as inpatients (n = 2084), systolic blood pressure &lt; 100 mmHg (n = 1127), estimated glomerular filtration rate &lt; 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (n = 528), and treated with sacubitril‐valsartan at baseline (n = 1594). Conclusions: GALACTIC‐HF enrolled a well‐treated, high‐risk population from both inpatient and outpatient settings, which will provide a definitive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of this novel therapy, as well as informing its potential future implementation

Network meta-analysis of prasugrel, ticagrelor, high- and standard-dose clopidogrel in patients scheduled for percutaneous coronary interventions

SummarySince novel antiplatelet treatments (prasugrel, ticagrelor, high-dose clopidogrel) have been predominantly tested against standard-dose clopidogrel, data on direct comparisons between these therapies are scarce. We therefore indirectly compared their efficacy and safety in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Electronic databases were searched systematically to identify head-to-head randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Network meta-analysis was performed using generalised linear mixed models with adjustment for length of follow-up. Findings were corroborated by mixed treatment comparison through Bayesian methods. Fourteen RCTs were identified and included in the analysis (high- vs. standard-dose clopidogrel: 9 trials, prasugrel vs. high-dose clopidogrel: 2 trials, prasugrel vs. standard-dose clopidogrel: 2 trials, ticagrelor vs. standard-dose clopidogrel: 1 trial). No significant differences were found for efficacy outcomes except for stent thrombosis favouring prasugrel (vs. ticagrelor: odds ratio [OR] 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42, 0.94; vs. high-dose clopidogrel: OR 0.70, 95%CI: 0.48, 1.01). Prasugrel exhibited a similar bleeding risk as high-dose clopidogrel, but more major (OR 1.43, 95%CI 1.07, 1.90) and major or minor bleeding (OR 1.36, 95%CI 1.09, 1.69) compared to ticagrelor. Ticagrelor was also associated with less major or minor bleeding compared to high-dose clopidogrel (OR 0.81, 95%CI 0.69, 0.96). No differences were seen for non CABG-related major bleeding between the three strategies. Results were corroborated in a subgroup analysis comprising only patients with acute coronary syndromes. In the absence of head-to-head clinical trials, network meta-analysis suggests potentially relevant differences in efficacy and bleeding risk among novel antiplatelet treatments and may thereby advance understanding of their differential therapeutic properties.</jats:p