Explore the vast range of titles available.

Despite current antiplatelet therapy, patients remain at risk of recurrent ischemic events after acute coronary syndromes (ACS), which may reflect persistently elevated thrombin generation. Factor XIa inhibition reduces thrombin generation and may improve clinical outcomes with minimal bleeding risk. Librexia ACS (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05754957) is a Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial to test the efficacy and safety of milvexian, an oral, selective factor XIa inhibitor, in addition to conventional antiplatelet therapy after a recent ACS. Eligibility criteria include symptoms of spontaneous ischemia, a diagnosis of ACS and cardiac biomarker elevation indicative of myonecrosis within 7 days before randomization, along with at least 2 risk-enhancing factors. Participants are randomly assigned to oral milvexian (25 mg twice daily) or a matched placebo. Randomization is stratified according to the planned duration and type of antiplatelet therapy. The primary efficacy endpoint is the time to first occurrence of the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), or ischemic stroke that will enroll approximately 16,000 patients with follow-up until 875 events are accrued. The first major secondary endpoint is time to the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, MI, ischemic stroke, major adverse limb events, and symptomatic venous thromboembolism. The principal safety endpoint is Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3c or 5 bleeding. The Librexia-ACS trial will determine the efficacy and safety of milvexian after ACS and will be the first trial to test whether factor XIa inhibition in addition to standard-of-care antiplatelet therapy reduces major adverse cardiovascular events without an increased risk of significant bleeding.

In a multicenter trial, 20,332 patients who had recently had an ischemic stroke were randomly assigned to receive either telmisartan or placebo. All patients also received medications for blood-pressure control at the investigators' discretion. At a mean follow-up of 2.5 years, there was no significant difference between the two study groups in the rates of recurrent stroke or major cardiovascular events. Patients who had recently had an ischemic stroke were randomly assigned to receive either telmisartan or placebo. At a mean follow-up of 2.5 years, there was no significant difference between the study groups in the rates of recurrent stroke or major cardiovascular events. Stroke is the second most frequent cause of death in the world and is responsible for about 5 million deaths each year. 1 An additional 15 million persons have nonfatal strokes, with about a third having disabling consequences. Elevated blood pressure is the strongest risk factor for stroke, and lowering of blood pressure, especially in patients with substantially elevated levels (e.g., systolic pressure, >160 mm Hg), reduces the risk of stroke. 2 After a stroke, lowering blood pressure with a combination of an angiotensin-converting–enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and a diuretic reduced rates of recurrent stroke in the Perindopril Protection against Recurrent Stroke Study . . .

Bempedoic acid, an ATP citrate lyase inhibitor, reduces low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels and is associated with a low incidence of muscle-related adverse events; its effects on cardiovascular outcomes remain uncertain. We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving patients who were unable or unwilling to take statins owing to unacceptable adverse effects (\"statin-intolerant\" patients) and had, or were at high risk for, cardiovascular disease. The patients were assigned to receive oral bempedoic acid, 180 mg daily, or placebo. The primary end point was a four-component composite of major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization. A total of 13,970 patients underwent randomization; 6992 were assigned to the bempedoic acid group and 6978 to the placebo group. The median duration of follow-up was 40.6 months. The mean LDL cholesterol level at baseline was 139.0 mg per deciliter in both groups, and after 6 months, the reduction in the level was greater with bempedoic acid than with placebo by 29.2 mg per deciliter; the observed difference in the percent reductions was 21.1 percentage points in favor of bempedoic acid. The incidence of a primary end-point event was significantly lower with bempedoic acid than with placebo (819 patients [11.7%] vs. 927 [13.3%]; hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 0.96; P = 0.004), as were the incidences of a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal stroke, or nonfatal myocardial infarction (575 [8.2%] vs. 663 [9.5%]; hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.96; P = 0.006); fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction (261 [3.7%] vs. 334 [4.8%]; hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.91; P = 0.002); and coronary revascularization (435 [6.2%] vs. 529 [7.6%]; hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.92; P = 0.001). Bempedoic acid had no significant effects on fatal or nonfatal stroke, death from cardiovascular causes, and death from any cause. The incidences of gout and cholelithiasis were higher with bempedoic acid than with placebo (3.1% vs. 2.1% and 2.2% vs. 1.2%, respectively), as were the incidences of small increases in serum creatinine, uric acid, and hepatic-enzyme levels. Among statin-intolerant patients, treatment with bempedoic acid was associated with a lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization). (Funded by Esperion Therapeutics; CLEAR Outcomes ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02993406.).

Among patients with recent MI, therapy with a polypill containing aspirin, ramipril, and atorvastatin led to a lower incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events at a median of 3 years than usual care.

Patients with type 2 diabetes are at high risk of fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction and stroke. There is indirect evidence that agonists of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ (PPAR γ) could reduce macrovascular complications. Our aim, therefore, was to ascertain whether pioglitazone reduces macrovascular morbidity and mortality in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes. We did a prospective, randomised controlled trial in 5238 patients with type 2 diabetes who had evidence of macrovascular disease. We recruited patients from primary-care practices and hospitals. We assigned patients to oral pioglitazone titrated from 15 mg to 45 mg (n=2605) or matching placebo (n=2633), to be taken in addition to their glucose-lowering drugs and other medications. Our primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, non fatal myocardial infarction (including silent myocardial infarction), stroke, acute coronary syndrome, endovascular or surgical intervention in the coronary or leg arteries, and amputation above the ankle. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN NCT00174993. Two patients were lost to follow-up, but were included in analyses. The average time of observation was 34·5 months. 514 of 2605 patients in the pioglitazone group and 572 of 2633 patients in the placebo group had at least one event in the primary composite endpoint (HR 0·90, 95% CI 0·80–1·02, p=0·095). The main secondary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and stroke. 301 patients in the pioglitazone group and 358 in the placebo group reached this endpoint (0·84, 0·72–0·98, p=0·027). Overall safety and tolerability was good with no change in the safety profile of pioglitazone identified. 6% (149 of 2065) and 4% (108 of 2633) of those in the pioglitazone and placebo groups, respectively, were admitted to hospital with heart failure; mortality rates from heart failure did not differ between groups. Pioglitazone reduces the composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes who have a high risk of macrovascular events.

The appropriate duration of treatment with beta-blocker drugs after a myocardial infarction is unknown. Data are needed on the safety and efficacy of the interruption of long-term beta-blocker treatment to reduce side effects and improve quality of life in patients with a history of uncomplicated myocardial infarction.

In a trial involving participants with HIV infection receiving antiretroviral therapy, the use of pitavastatin resulted in a lower risk of a major adverse cardiac event than placebo at a median of 5.1 years.

At a median of 2.2 years, patients with stable coronary artery disease and advanced kidney disease who were treated with an invasive strategy of coronary angiography with revascularization if indicated did not have a lower risk of death or MI than those who were treated with a conservative strategy of medical therapy alone.

Key Points Currently, no treatment has been proven to be effective for preventing 'myocardial reperfusion injury' — the death of cardiomyocytes that paradoxically occurs when reperfusing ischaemic myocardium One or more brief cycles of ischaemia and reperfusion can protect the heart from acute myocardial infarction and myocardial reperfusion injury — a phenomenon termed 'ischaemic conditioning' Ischaemic conditioning can be applied either directly to the heart or from afar; that is, to a remote organ or tissue (such as an arm or a leg) Investigation of signalling pathways underlying ischaemic conditioning has identified molecular targets for pharmacological manipulation — a therapeutic strategy termed 'pharmacological cardioprotection' Proof-of-concept clinical studies have shown mixed results of ischaemic conditioning in cardiac surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention; more consistently positive results have been observed in acute myocardial infarction The results of large, multicentre, randomized, controlled clinical trials of ischaemic conditioning on clinical outcomes after cardiac surgery have highlighted the challenges in translating cardioprotection into clinical practice Ischaemic conditioning is an endogenous cardioprotective strategy that involves the application of brief cycles of ischaemia and reperfusion either directly to the heart, or to a remote organ or tissue, and which has been shown to reduce infarct size. In this Review, Hausenloy and Yellon summarize the various forms of ischaemic conditioning and pharmacological cardioprotection, and highlight the challenges of translating these methods into the clinical setting. The 30-year anniversary of the discovery of 'ischaemic preconditioning' is in 2016. This endogenous phenomenon can paradoxically protect the heart from acute myocardial infarction by subjecting it to one or more brief cycles of ischaemia and reperfusion. Apart from complete reperfusion, this method is the most powerful intervention known for reducing infarct size. The concept of ischaemic preconditioning has evolved into 'ischaemic conditioning', a term that encompasses a number of related endogenous cardioprotective strategies, applied either directly to the heart (ischaemic preconditioning or postconditioning) or from afar, for example a limb (remote ischaemic preconditioning, perconditioning, or postconditioning). Investigations of signalling pathways underlying ischaemic conditioning have identified a number of therapeutic targets for pharmacological manipulation. Over the past 3 decades, a number of ischaemic and pharmacological cardioprotection strategies, discovered in experimental studies, have been examined in the clinical setting of acute myocardial infarction and CABG surgery. The results from many of the studies have been disappointing, and no effective cardioprotective therapy is currently used in clinical practice. Several large, multicentre, randomized, controlled clinical trials on cardioprotection have highlighted the challenges of translating ischaemic conditioning and pharmacological cardioprotection strategies into patient benefit. However, a number of cardioprotective therapies have shown promising results in reducing infarct size and improving clinical outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists differ in chemical structure, duration of action, and in their effects on clinical outcomes. The cardiovascular effects of once-weekly albiglutide in type 2 diabetes are unknown. We aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of albiglutide in preventing cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in 610 sites across 28 countries. We randomly assigned patients aged 40 years and older with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (at a 1:1 ratio) to groups that either received a subcutaneous injection of albiglutide (30–50 mg, based on glycaemic response and tolerability) or of a matched volume of placebo once a week, in addition to their standard care. Investigators used an interactive voice or web response system to obtain treatment assignment, and patients and all study investigators were masked to their treatment allocation. We hypothesised that albiglutide would be non-inferior to placebo for the primary outcome of the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, which was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. If non-inferiority was confirmed by an upper limit of the 95% CI for a hazard ratio of less than 1·30, closed testing for superiority was prespecified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02465515. Patients were screened between July 1, 2015, and Nov 24, 2016. 10 793 patients were screened and 9463 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to groups: 4731 patients were assigned to receive albiglutide and 4732 patients to receive placebo. On Nov 8, 2017, it was determined that 611 primary endpoints and a median follow-up of at least 1·5 years had accrued, and participants returned for a final visit and discontinuation from study treatment; the last patient visit was on March 12, 2018. These 9463 patients, the intention-to-treat population, were evaluated for a median duration of 1·6 years and were assessed for the primary outcome. The primary composite outcome occurred in 338 (7%) of 4731 patients at an incidence rate of 4·6 events per 100 person-years in the albiglutide group and in 428 (9%) of 4732 patients at an incidence rate of 5·9 events per 100 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·78, 95% CI 0·68–0·90), which indicated that albiglutide was superior to placebo (p<0·0001 for non-inferiority; p=0·0006 for superiority). The incidence of acute pancreatitis (ten patients in the albiglutide group and seven patients in the placebo group), pancreatic cancer (six patients in the albiglutide group and five patients in the placebo group), medullary thyroid carcinoma (zero patients in both groups), and other serious adverse events did not differ between the two groups. There were three (<1%) deaths in the placebo group that were assessed by investigators, who were masked to study drug assignment, to be treatment-related and two (<1%) deaths in the albiglutide group. In patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, albiglutide was superior to placebo with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events. Evidence-based glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists should therefore be considered as part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes. GlaxoSmithKline.