Montreal Heart Institute

Abstract Genetic variants that inactivate protein-coding genes are a powerful source of information about the phenotypic consequences of gene disruption: genes that are crucial for the function of an organism will be depleted of such variants in natural populations, whereas non-essential genes will tolerate their accumulation. However, predicted loss-of-function variants are enriched for annotation errors, and tend to be found at extremely low frequencies, so their analysis requires careful variant annotation and very large sample sizes 1 . Here we describe the aggregation of 125,748 exomes and 15,708 genomes from human sequencing studies into the Genome Aggregation Database (gnomAD). We identify 443,769 high-confidence predicted loss-of-function variants in this cohort after filtering for artefacts caused by sequencing and annotation errors. Using an improved model of human mutation rates, we classify human protein-coding genes along a spectrum that represents tolerance to inactivation, validate this classification using data from model organisms and engineered human cells, and show that it can be used to improve the power of gene discovery for both common and rare diseases.

BACKGROUND: We compared the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 with enalapril in patients who had heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. In previous studies, enalapril improved survival in such patients. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 8442 patients with class II, III, or IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of 40% or less to receive either LCZ696 (at a dose of 200 mg twice daily) or enalapril (at a dose of 10 mg twice daily), in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure, but the trial was designed to detect a difference in the rates of death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early, according to prespecified rules, after a median follow-up of 27 months, because the boundary for an overwhelming benefit with LCZ696 had been crossed. At the time of study closure, the primary outcome had occurred in 914 patients (21.8%) in the LCZ696 group and 1117 patients (26.5%) in the enalapril group (hazard ratio in the LCZ696 group, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 0.87; P<0.001). A total of 711 patients (17.0%) receiving LCZ696 and 835 patients (19.8%) receiving enalapril died (hazard ratio for death from any cause, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.93; P<0.001); of these patients, 558 (13.3%) and 693 (16.5%), respectively, died from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.89; P<0.001). As compared with enalapril, LCZ696 also reduced the risk of hospitalization for heart failure by 21% (P<0.001) and decreased the symptoms and physical limitations of heart failure (P=0.001). The LCZ696 group had higher proportions of patients with hypotension and nonserious angioedema but lower proportions with renal impairment, hyperkalemia, and cough than the enalapril group. CONCLUSIONS: LCZ696 was superior to enalapril in reducing the risks of death and of hospitalization for heart failure. (Funded by Novartis; PARADIGM-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01035255.).

BACKGROUND: In patients with type 2 diabetes, inhibitors of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) reduce the risk of a first hospitalization for heart failure, possibly through glucose-independent mechanisms. More data are needed regarding the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with established heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, regardless of the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In this phase 3, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 4744 patients with New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of 40% or less to receive either dapagliflozin (at a dose of 10 mg once daily) or placebo, in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of worsening heart failure (hospitalization or an urgent visit resulting in intravenous therapy for heart failure) or cardiovascular death. RESULTS: Over a median of 18.2 months, the primary outcome occurred in 386 of 2373 patients (16.3%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 502 of 2371 patients (21.2%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.85; P<0.001). A first worsening heart failure event occurred in 237 patients (10.0%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 326 patients (13.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.83). Death from cardiovascular causes occurred in 227 patients (9.6%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 273 patients (11.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.98); 276 patients (11.6%) and 329 patients (13.9%), respectively, died from any cause (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.97). Findings in patients with diabetes were similar to those in patients without diabetes. The frequency of adverse events related to volume depletion, renal dysfunction, and hypoglycemia did not differ between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, the risk of worsening heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was lower among those who received dapagliflozin than among those who received placebo, regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes. (Funded by AstraZeneca; DAPA-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03036124.).

BACKGROUND: Statin therapy reduces low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels and the risk of cardiovascular events, but whether the addition of ezetimibe, a nonstatin drug that reduces intestinal cholesterol absorption, can reduce the rate of cardiovascular events further is not known. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized trial involving 18,144 patients who had been hospitalized for an acute coronary syndrome within the preceding 10 days and had LDL cholesterol levels of 50 to 100 mg per deciliter (1.3 to 2.6 mmol per liter) if they were receiving lipid-lowering therapy or 50 to 125 mg per deciliter (1.3 to 3.2 mmol per liter) if they were not receiving lipid-lowering therapy. The combination of simvastatin (40 mg) and ezetimibe (10 mg) (simvastatin-ezetimibe) was compared with simvastatin (40 mg) and placebo (simvastatin monotherapy). The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina requiring rehospitalization, coronary revascularization (≥30 days after randomization), or nonfatal stroke. The median follow-up was 6 years. RESULTS: The median time-weighted average LDL cholesterol level during the study was 53.7 mg per deciliter (1.4 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group, as compared with 69.5 mg per deciliter (1.8 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-monotherapy group (P<0.001). The Kaplan-Meier event rate for the primary end point at 7 years was 32.7% in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group, as compared with 34.7% in the simvastatin-monotherapy group (absolute risk difference, 2.0 percentage points; hazard ratio, 0.936; 95% confidence interval, 0.89 to 0.99; P=0.016). Rates of prespecified muscle, gallbladder, and hepatic adverse effects and cancer were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: When added to statin therapy, ezetimibe resulted in incremental lowering of LDL cholesterol levels and improved cardiovascular outcomes. Moreover, lowering LDL cholesterol to levels below previous targets provided additional benefit. (Funded by Merck; IMPROVE-IT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00202878.).

BACKGROUND: Patients with elevated triglyceride levels are at increased risk for ischemic events. Icosapent ethyl, a highly purified eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester, lowers triglyceride levels, but data are needed to determine its effects on ischemic events. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients with established cardiovascular disease or with diabetes and other risk factors, who had been receiving statin therapy and who had a fasting triglyceride level of 135 to 499 mg per deciliter (1.52 to 5.63 mmol per liter) and a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level of 41 to 100 mg per deciliter (1.06 to 2.59 mmol per liter). The patients were randomly assigned to receive 2 g of icosapent ethyl twice daily (total daily dose, 4 g) or placebo. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina. The key secondary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. RESULTS: A total of 8179 patients were enrolled (70.7% for secondary prevention of cardiovascular events) and were followed for a median of 4.9 years. A primary end-point event occurred in 17.2% of the patients in the icosapent ethyl group, as compared with 22.0% of the patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 0.83; P<0.001); the corresponding rates of the key secondary end point were 11.2% and 14.8% (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.83; P<0.001). The rates of additional ischemic end points, as assessed according to a prespecified hierarchical schema, were significantly lower in the icosapent ethyl group than in the placebo group, including the rate of cardiovascular death (4.3% vs. 5.2%; hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.98; P=0.03). A larger percentage of patients in the icosapent ethyl group than in the placebo group were hospitalized for atrial fibrillation or flutter (3.1% vs. 2.1%, P=0.004). Serious bleeding events occurred in 2.7% of the patients in the icosapent ethyl group and in 2.1% in the placebo group (P=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with elevated triglyceride levels despite the use of statins, the risk of ischemic events, including cardiovascular death, was significantly lower among those who received 2 g of icosapent ethyl twice daily than among those who received placebo. (Funded by Amarin Pharma; REDUCE-IT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01492361 .).

BACKGROUND: Inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) has been shown to have a substantial effect on plasma lipoprotein levels. We investigated whether torcetrapib, a potent CETP inhibitor, might reduce major cardiovascular events. The trial was terminated prematurely because of an increased risk of death and cardiac events in patients receiving torcetrapib. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind study involving 15,067 patients at high cardiovascular risk. The patients received either torcetrapib plus atorvastatin or atorvastatin alone. The primary outcome was the time to the first major cardiovascular event, which was defined as death from coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina. RESULTS: At 12 months in patients who received torcetrapib, there was an increase of 72.1% in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and a decrease of 24.9% in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, as compared with baseline (P<0.001 for both comparisons), in addition to an increase of 5.4 mm Hg in systolic blood pressure, a decrease in serum potassium, and increases in serum sodium, bicarbonate, and aldosterone (P<0.001 for all comparisons). There was also an increased risk of cardiovascular events (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09 to 1.44; P=0.001) and death from any cause (hazard ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.14 to 2.19; P=0.006). Post hoc analyses showed an increased risk of death in patients treated with torcetrapib whose reduction in potassium or increase in bicarbonate was greater than the median change. CONCLUSIONS: Torcetrapib therapy resulted in an increased risk of mortality and morbidity of unknown mechanism. Although there was evidence of an off-target effect of torcetrapib, we cannot rule out adverse effects related to CETP inhibition. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00134264 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

BACKGROUND: Experimental and clinical evidence supports the role of inflammation in atherosclerosis and its complications. Colchicine is an orally administered, potent antiinflammatory medication that is indicated for the treatment of gout and pericarditis. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind trial involving patients recruited within 30 days after a myocardial infarction. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either low-dose colchicine (0.5 mg once daily) or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, resuscitated cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction, stroke, or urgent hospitalization for angina leading to coronary revascularization. The components of the primary end point and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 4745 patients were enrolled; 2366 patients were assigned to the colchicine group, and 2379 to the placebo group. Patients were followed for a median of 22.6 months. The primary end point occurred in 5.5% of the patients in the colchicine group, as compared with 7.1% of those in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61 to 0.96; P = 0.02). The hazard ratios were 0.84 (95% CI, 0.46 to 1.52) for death from cardiovascular causes, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.25 to 2.73) for resuscitated cardiac arrest, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.68 to 1.21) for myocardial infarction, 0.26 (95% CI, 0.10 to 0.70) for stroke, and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.31 to 0.81) for urgent hospitalization for angina leading to coronary revascularization. Diarrhea was reported in 9.7% of the patients in the colchicine group and in 8.9% of those in the placebo group (P = 0.35). Pneumonia was reported as a serious adverse event in 0.9% of the patients in the colchicine group and in 0.4% of those in the placebo group (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with a recent myocardial infarction, colchicine at a dose of 0.5 mg daily led to a significantly lower risk of ischemic cardiovascular events than placebo. (Funded by the Government of Quebec and others; COLCOT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02551094.).

Publicado também em: https://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/53933

BACKGROUND: Mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists improve the prognosis for patients with heart failure and a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. We evaluated the effects of spironolactone in patients with heart failure and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind trial, we assigned 3445 patients with symptomatic heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 45% or more to receive either spironolactone (15 to 45 mg daily) or placebo. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, aborted cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for the management of heart failure. RESULTS: With a mean follow-up of 3.3 years, the primary outcome occurred in 320 of 1722 patients in the spironolactone group (18.6%) and 351 of 1723 patients in the placebo group (20.4%) (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.04; P=0.14). Of the components of the primary outcome, only hospitalization for heart failure had a significantly lower incidence in the spironolactone group than in the placebo group (206 patients [12.0%] vs. 245 patients [14.2%]; hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.99, P=0.04). Neither total deaths nor hospitalizations for any reason were significantly reduced by spironolactone. Treatment with spironolactone was associated with increased serum creatinine levels and a doubling of the rate of hyperkalemia (18.7%, vs. 9.1% in the placebo group) but reduced hypokalemia. With frequent monitoring, there were no significant differences in the incidence of serious adverse events, a serum creatinine level of 3.0 mg per deciliter (265 μmol per liter) or higher, or dialysis. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction, treatment with spironolactone did not significantly reduce the incidence of the primary composite outcome of death from cardiovascular causes, aborted cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for the management of heart failure. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; TOPCAT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00094302.).

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.).

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors such as captopril reduce mortality and cardiovascular morbidity among patients with myocardial infarction complicated by left ventricular systolic dysfunction, heart failure, or both. In a double-blind trial, we compared the effect of the angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan, the ACE inhibitor captopril, and the combination of the two on mortality in this population of patients. METHODS: Patients receiving conventional therapy were randomly assigned, 0.5 to 10 days after acute myocardial infarction, to additional therapy with valsartan (4909 patients), valsartan plus captopril (4885 patients), or captopril (4909 patients). The primary end point was death from any cause. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 24.7 months, 979 patients in the valsartan group died, as did 941 patients in the valsartan-and-captopril group and 958 patients in the captopril group (hazard ratio in the valsartan group as compared with the captopril group, 1.00; 97.5 percent confidence interval, 0.90 to 1.11; P=0.98; hazard ratio in the valsartan-and-captopril group as compared with the captopril group, 0.98; 97.5 percent confidence interval, 0.89 to 1.09; P=0.73). The upper limit of the one-sided 97.5 percent confidence interval for the comparison of the valsartan group with the captopril group was within the prespecified margin for noninferiority with regard to mortality (P=0.004) and with regard to the composite end point of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events (P<0.001). The valsartan-and-captopril group had the most drug-related adverse events. With monotherapy, hypotension and renal dysfunction were more common in the valsartan group, and cough, rash, and taste disturbance were more common in the captopril group. CONCLUSIONS: Valsartan is as effective as captopril in patients who are at high risk for cardiovascular events after myocardial infarction. Combining valsartan with captopril increased the rate of adverse events without improving survival.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, -1.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522.).

BACKGROUND: The angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril-valsartan led to a reduced risk of hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes among patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. The effect of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned 4822 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II to IV heart failure, ejection fraction of 45% or higher, elevated level of natriuretic peptides, and structural heart disease to receive sacubitril-valsartan (target dose, 97 mg of sacubitril with 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or valsartan (target dose, 160 mg twice daily). The primary outcome was a composite of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. Primary outcome components, secondary outcomes (including NYHA class change, worsening renal function, and change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire [KCCQ] clinical summary score [scale, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating fewer symptoms and physical limitations]), and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: There were 894 primary events in 526 patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 1009 primary events in 557 patients in the valsartan group (rate ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 1.01; P = 0.06). The incidence of death from cardiovascular causes was 8.5% in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 8.9% in the valsartan group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.16); there were 690 and 797 total hospitalizations for heart failure, respectively (rate ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.00). NYHA class improved in 15.0% of the patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 12.6% of those in the valsartan group (odds ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.86); renal function worsened in 1.4% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.77). The mean change in the KCCQ clinical summary score at 8 months was 1.0 point (95% CI, 0.0 to 2.1) higher in the sacubitril-valsartan group. Patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group had a higher incidence of hypotension and angioedema and a lower incidence of hyperkalemia. Among 12 prespecified subgroups, there was suggestion of heterogeneity with possible benefit with sacubitril-valsartan in patients with lower ejection fraction and in women. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril-valsartan did not result in a significantly lower rate of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes among patients with heart failure and an ejection fraction of 45% or higher. (Funded by Novartis; PARAGON-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01920711.).

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

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation is less successful for persistent atrial fibrillation than for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Guidelines suggest that adjuvant substrate modification in addition to pulmonary-vein isolation is required in persistent atrial fibrillation. METHODS: We randomly assigned 589 patients with persistent atrial fibrillation in a 1:4:4 ratio to ablation with pulmonary-vein isolation alone (67 patients), pulmonary-vein isolation plus ablation of electrograms showing complex fractionated activity (263 patients), or pulmonary-vein isolation plus additional linear ablation across the left atrial roof and mitral valve isthmus (259 patients). The duration of follow-up was 18 months. The primary end point was freedom from any documented recurrence of atrial fibrillation lasting longer than 30 seconds after a single ablation procedure. RESULTS: Procedure time was significantly shorter for pulmonary-vein isolation alone than for the other two procedures (P<0.001). After 18 months, 59% of patients assigned to pulmonary-vein isolation alone were free from recurrent atrial fibrillation, as compared with 49% of patients assigned to pulmonary-vein isolation plus complex electrogram ablation and 46% of patients assigned to pulmonary-vein isolation plus linear ablation (P=0.15). There were also no significant differences among the three groups for the secondary end points, including freedom from atrial fibrillation after two ablation procedures and freedom from any atrial arrhythmia. Complications included tamponade (three patients), stroke or transient ischemic attack (three patients), and atrioesophageal fistula (one patient). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with persistent atrial fibrillation, we found no reduction in the rate of recurrent atrial fibrillation when either linear ablation or ablation of complex fractionated electrograms was performed in addition to pulmonary-vein isolation. (Funded by St. Jude Medical; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01203748.).

CONTEXT: Prior intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) trials have demonstrated slowing or halting of atherosclerosis progression with statin therapy but have not shown convincing evidence of regression using percent atheroma volume (PAV), the most rigorous IVUS measure of disease progression and regression. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether very intensive statin therapy could regress coronary atherosclerosis as determined by IVUS imaging. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective, open-label blinded end-points trial (A Study to Evaluate the Effect of Rosuvastatin on Intravascular Ultrasound-Derived Coronary Atheroma Burden [ASTEROID]) was performed at 53 community and tertiary care centers in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia. A motorized IVUS pullback was used to assess coronary atheroma burden at baseline and after 24 months of treatment. Each pair of baseline and follow-up IVUS assessments was analyzed in a blinded fashion. PATIENTS: Between November 2002 and October 2003, 507 patients had a baseline IVUS examination and received at least 1 dose of study drug. After 24 months, 349 patients had evaluable serial IVUS examinations. INTERVENTION: All patients received intensive statin therapy with rosuvastatin, 40 mg/d. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Two primary efficacy parameters were prespecified: the change in PAV and the change in nominal atheroma volume in the 10-mm subsegment with the greatest disease severity at baseline. A secondary efficacy variable, change in normalized total atheroma volume for the entire artery, was also prespecified. RESULTS: The mean (SD) baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level of 130.4 (34.3) mg/dL declined to 60.8 (20.0) mg/dL, a mean reduction of 53.2% (P<.001). Mean (SD) high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) level at baseline was 43.1 (11.1) mg/dL, increasing to 49.0 (12.6) mg/dL, an increase of 14.7% (P<.001). The mean (SD) change in PAV for the entire vessel was -0.98% (3.15%), with a median of -0.79% (97.5% CI, -1.21% to -0.53%) (P<.001 vs baseline). The mean (SD) change in atheroma volume in the most diseased 10-mm subsegment was -6.1 (10.1) mm3, with a median of -5.6 mm3 (97.5% CI, -6.8 to -4.0 mm3) (P<.001 vs baseline). Change in total atheroma volume showed a 6.8% median reduction; with a mean (SD) reduction of -14.7 (25.7) mm3, with a median of -12.5 mm3 (95% CI, -15.1 to -10.5 mm3) (P<.001 vs baseline). Adverse events were infrequent and similar to other statin trials. CONCLUSIONS: Very high-intensity statin therapy using rosuvastatin 40 mg/d achieved an average LDL-C of 60.8 mg/dL and increased HDL-C by 14.7%, resulting in significant regression of atherosclerosis for all 3 prespecified IVUS measures of disease burden. Treatment to LDL-C levels below currently accepted guidelines, when accompanied by significant HDL-C increases, can regress atherosclerosis in coronary disease patients. Further studies are needed to determine the effect of the observed changes on clinical outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00240318.

BACKGROUND: In observational analyses, higher levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol have been associated with a lower risk of coronary heart disease events. However, whether raising HDL cholesterol levels therapeutically reduces cardiovascular risk remains uncertain. Inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) raises HDL cholesterol levels and might therefore improve cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: We randomly assigned 15,871 patients who had had a recent acute coronary syndrome to receive the CETP inhibitor dalcetrapib, at a dose of 600 mg daily, or placebo, in addition to the best available evidence-based care. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of death from coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, unstable angina, or cardiac arrest with resuscitation. RESULTS: At the time of randomization, the mean HDL cholesterol level was 42 mg per deciliter (1.1 mmol per liter), and the mean low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level was 76 mg per deciliter (2.0 mmol per liter). Over the course of the trial, HDL cholesterol levels increased from baseline by 4 to 11% in the placebo group and by 31 to 40% in the dalcetrapib group. Dalcetrapib had a minimal effect on LDL cholesterol levels. Patients were followed for a median of 31 months. At a prespecified interim analysis that included 1135 primary end-point events (71% of the projected total number), the independent data and safety monitoring board recommended termination of the trial for futility. As compared with placebo, dalcetrapib did not alter the risk of the primary end point (cumulative event rate, 8.0% and 8.3%, respectively; hazard ratio with dalcetrapib, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.93 to 1.16; P=0.52) and did not have a significant effect on any component of the primary end point or total mortality. The median C-reactive protein level was 0.2 mg per liter higher and the mean systolic blood pressure was 0.6 mm Hg higher with dalcetrapib as compared with placebo (P<0.001 for both comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: In patients who had had a recent acute coronary syndrome, dalcetrapib increased HDL cholesterol levels but did not reduce the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche; dal-OUTCOMES ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00658515.).

During the past decade, our understanding of the pathophysiology of coronary artery disease (CAD) has undergone a remarkable evolution. We review here how these advances have altered our concepts of and clinical approaches to both the chronic and acute phases of CAD. Previously considered a cholesterol storage disease, we currently view atherosclerosis as an inflammatory disorder. The appreciation of arterial remodeling (compensatory enlargement) has expanded attention beyond stenoses evident by angiography to encompass the biology of nonstenotic plaques. Revascularization effectively relieves ischemia, but we now recognize the need to attend to nonobstructive lesions as well. Aggressive management of modifiable risk factors reduces cardiovascular events and should accompany appropriate revascularization. We now recognize that disruption of plaques that may not produce critical stenoses causes many acute coronary syndromes (ACS). The disrupted plaque represents a "solid-state" stimulus to thrombosis. Alterations in circulating prothrombotic or antifibrinolytic mediators in the "fluid phase" of the blood can also predispose toward ACS. Recent results have established the multiplicity of "high-risk" plaques and the widespread nature of inflammation in patients prone to develop ACS. These findings challenge our traditional view of coronary atherosclerosis as a segmental or localized disease. Thus, treatment of ACS should involve 2 overlapping phases: first, addressing the culprit lesion, and second, aiming at rapid "stabilization" of other plaques that may produce recurrent events. The concept of "interventional cardiology" must expand beyond mechanical revascularization to embrace preventive interventions that forestall future events.

BACKGROUND: The potential benefit of dual antiplatelet therapy beyond 1 year after a myocardial infarction has not been established. We investigated the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor, a P2Y12 receptor antagonist with established efficacy after an acute coronary syndrome, in this context. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a double-blind 1:1:1 fashion, 21,162 patients who had had a myocardial infarction 1 to 3 years earlier to ticagrelor at a dose of 90 mg twice daily, ticagrelor at a dose of 60 mg twice daily, or placebo. All the patients were to receive low-dose aspirin and were followed for a median of 33 months. The primary efficacy end point was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The primary safety end point was Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding. RESULTS: The two ticagrelor doses each reduced, as compared with placebo, the rate of the primary efficacy end point, with Kaplan-Meier rates at 3 years of 7.85% in the group that received 90 mg of ticagrelor twice daily, 7.77% in the group that received 60 mg of ticagrelor twice daily, and 9.04% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for 90 mg of ticagrelor vs. placebo, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.96; P=0.008; hazard ratio for 60 mg of ticagrelor vs. placebo, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.95; P=0.004). Rates of TIMI major bleeding were higher with ticagrelor (2.60% with 90 mg and 2.30% with 60 mg) than with placebo (1.06%) (P<0.001 for each dose vs. placebo); the rates of intracranial hemorrhage or fatal bleeding in the three groups were 0.63%, 0.71%, and 0.60%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with a myocardial infarction more than 1 year previously, treatment with ticagrelor significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke and increased the risk of major bleeding. (Funded by AstraZeneca; PEGASUS-TIMI 54 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01225562.).

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the diagnosis of major depression in patients hospitalized following myocardial infarction (MI) would have an independent impact on cardiac mortality over the first 6 months after discharge. DESIGN: Prospective evaluation of the impact of depression assessed using a modified version of the National Institute of Mental Health Diagnostic Interview Schedule for major depressive episode. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate the independent impact of depression after control for significant clinical predictors in the data set. SETTING: A large, university-affiliated hospital specializing in cardiac care, located in Montreal, Quebec. PATIENTS: All consenting patients (N = 222) who met established criteria for MI between August 1991 and July 1992 and who survived to be discharged from the hospital. Patients were interviewed between 5 and 15 days following the MI and were followed up for 6 months. There were no age limits (range, 24 to 88 years; mean, 60 years). The sample was 78% male. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Survival status at 6 months. RESULTS: By 6 months, 12 patients had died. All deaths were due to cardiac causes. Depression was a significant predictor of mortality (hazard ratio, 5.74; 95% confidence interval, 4.61 to 6.87; P = .0006). The impact of depression remained after control for left ventricular dysfunction (Killip class) and previous MI, the multivariate significant predictors of mortality in the data set (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.29; 95% confidence interval, 3.14 to 5.44; P = .013). CONCLUSION: Major depression in patients hospitalized following an MI is an independent risk factor for mortality at 6 months. Its impact is at least equivalent to that of left ventricular dysfunction (Killip class) and history of previous MI. Additional study is needed to determine whether treatment of depression can influence post-MI survival and to assess possible underlying mechanisms.