European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy最新文献

Background: Antihypertensive drugs are known to lower cardiovascular mortality, but the role of different types of antihypertensive drugs in lifespan has not been clarified. Moreover, the underlying mechanisms remain unclear.

Methods and results: To minimize confounding, we used Mendelian randomization to assess the role of different antihypertensive drug classes in longevity and examined the pathways via proteins. Genetic variants associated with systolic blood pressure (SBP) corresponding to drug-target genes were used as genetic instruments. The genetic associations with lifespan were obtained from a large genome-wide association study including 1 million European participants from UK Biobank and LifeGen. For significant antihypertensive drug classes, we performed sex-specific analysis, drug-target analysis, and colocalization. To examine the mediation pathways, we assessed the associations of 2291 plasma proteins with lifespan, and examined the associations of drug classes with the proteins affecting lifespan. After correcting for multiple testing, genetically proxied beta-blockers (BBs), calcium channel blockers (CCBs), and vasodilators were related to longer life years (BBs: 2.03, 95% CI 0.78-3.28 per 5 mmHg reduction in SBP, CCBs: 3.40, 95% CI 1.47-5.33, and vasodilators: 2.92, 95% CI 1.08-4.77). The beneficial effects of BBs and CCBs were more obvious in men. ADRB1, CACNA2D2, CACNB3, CPT1A, CPT2, and EDNRA genes were related to extended lifespan, with CPT2 further supported by colocalization evidence. Eighty-six proteins were related to lifespan, of which four proteins were affected by CCBs. CDH1 may mediate the association between CCBs and lifespan.

Conclusions: Beta-blockers, CCBs, and vasodilators may prolong lifespan, with potential sex differences for BBs and CCBs. The role of CCBs in lifespan is partly mediated by CDH1. Prioritizing the potential protein targets can provide new insights into healthy aging.

Aims: Icosapent ethyl lowers triglycerides and significantly reduces major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), though treatment effects may vary between individuals. This study aimed to determine the relative and absolute effects of icosapent ethyl on MACE according to baseline cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Methods and results: Participants from the Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial (REDUCE-IT) with ASCVD were included (n = 5785). The primary outcome was 3-point MACE, i.e. non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. Baseline 5-year risk of MACE was estimated using the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guideline-recommended SMART2 risk score. Modification of the relative treatment effects of icosapent ethyl by baseline risk was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models, including a treatment-by-risk interaction. Next, treatment effects were assessed stratified by quartiles of baseline risk. During a median follow-up of 4.8 years (interquartile range 3.2-5.3), MACE occurred in 361 vs. 489 patients in the icosapent ethyl vs. placebo group [95% confidence interval (CI)]; hazard ratio (HR) 0.72 (0.63-0.82), absolute risk reduction (ARR) 4.4% (2.6-6.2%), number needed to treat (NNT) 23 (16-38), and 5-year Kaplan-Meier estimated cumulative incidence reduction (CIR) 5.7% (3.5-7.9%). Icosapent ethyl significantly reduced MACE in all risk quartiles, with an HR (95% CI) of 0.62 (0.43-0.88), 0.66 (0.48-0.92), 0.69 (0.53-0.90), and 0.78 (0.63-0.96), respectively (P for treatment-by-risk interaction = 0.106). The ARR (95% CI) increased across risk quartiles, i.e. was 3.9% (1.0-6.8%), 4.3% (1.2-7.3%), 5.1% (1.4-8.7%), and 5.6% (1.3-10.0%), respectively. This translates to NNTs (95% CI) of 26 (15-98), 24 (14-84), 20 (11-70), and 18 (10-77). The 5-year CIR (95% CI) was 4.8% (1.3-8.2%), 5.0% (1.3-8.7%), 6.1% (1.7-10.5%), and 7.7% (2.3-13.2%), respectively. Consistent results were obtained for 5-point MACE, additionally including coronary revascularization and unstable angina.

Conclusion: Among patients with ASCVD and elevated triglyceride levels, icosapent ethyl significantly reduces the risk of MACE irrespective of baseline CVD risk, though absolute benefits are largest for patients at the highest risk.

Aims: Examine whether the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL -C) determination method influences the rate of statin initiation for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Methods and results: We conducted a register-based retrospective study in the Region of Southern Denmark. Two hospital-based laboratories in the region directly measure LDL -C whereas four laboratories calculate LDL -C using Friedewald's formula. Physicians do not choose which method is used. We included all statin-naïve patients ≥40 years with no history of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease, who had their LDL -C determined during 2018-2019. There were 202 807 people who had LDL -C determined during the study period (median age 59 years, 44% women) of which 37% had a direct LDL -C measurement. The median reported LDL -C was 3.40 mmol/L [interquartile range (IQR) 2.90-4.00] for those with a direct measurement vs. 3.00 mmol/L (IQR 2.40-3.50) for those with calculated LDL -C. For those with direct measurement, re-calculated LDL -C (using Friedewald's formula) was 0.35 mmol/L lower than the reported direct LDL -C measurement. Among those with directly measured LDL -C, 3.6% initiated statins compared with 2.7% of those with a calculated LDL -C. Direct LDL -C measurement led to higher odds of having a statin initiated compared with calculated LDL -C (adjusted odds ratio 1.23, 95% CI 1.17-1.30); for those with triglycerides >1.7 mmol/L the adjusted odds ratio was 1.41 (95% CI 1.30-1.52).

Conclusion: Differences in the reporting of LDL -C from laboratories using different methods have a substantial influence on physician's decisions to prescribe statins.

Aims: In the Randomized Evaluation of Decreased Usage of Beta-Blockers after Acute Myocardial Infarction (REDUCE-AMI) study, long-term beta-blocker use in patients after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction demonstrated no effect on death or cardiovascular outcomes. The aim of this prespecified substudy was to investigate effects of beta-blockers on self-reported quality of life and well-being.

Methods and results: From this parallel-group, open-label, registry-based randomized clinical trial, EQ-5D, and World Health Organization well-being index-5 (WHO-5) questionnaires were obtained at 6-10 weeks and 11-13 months after AMI in 4080 and 806 patients, respectively. We report results from intention-to-treat and on-treatment analyses for the overall population and relevant subgroups using Wilcoxon rank sum test and adjusted ordinal regression analyses. Of the 4080 individuals reporting EQ-5D (median age 64 years, 22% female), 2023 were randomized to beta-blockers. The main outcome, median EQ-5D index score, was 0.94 [interquartile range (IQR) 0.88, 0.97] in the beta-blocker group, and 0.94 (IQR 0.88, 0.97) in the no-beta-blocker group 6-10 weeks after AMI, OR 1.00 [95% CI 0.89-1.13; P > 0.9]. After 11-13 months, results remained unchanged. Findings were robust in on-treatment analyses and across relevant subgroups. Secondary outcomes, EQ-VAS and WHO-5 index score, confirmed these results.

Conclusion: Among patients after AMI with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, self-reported quality of life and well-being was not significantly different in individuals randomized to routine long-term beta-blocker therapy as compared to individuals with no beta-blocker use. These results appear consistent regardless of adherence to randomized treatment and across subgroups which emphasizes the need for a careful individual risk-benefit evaluation prior to initiation of beta-blocker treatment.

Aims: Early identification of patients with increased bleeding risk increases the possibility to individualize antithrombotic treatment. We validated the PRECISE-DAPT score, originally developed to estimate bleeding risk in patients on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) patients.

Methods and results: All patients who underwent first time, isolated CABG in Sweden 2009-2020 and survived until discharge were included. The four-item PRECISE-DAPT score, based on age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, preoperative haemoglobin concentration, and previous spontaneous bleeding, was calculated in patients discharged on DAPT (n = 6 838), or antiplatelet monotherapy (n = 15 406). High bleeding risk was defined as a score ≥ 25 in accordance with previous studies and major bleeding as hospitalization due to bleeding. Associations were assessed by C-statistics and Cox regression models.Major bleeding occurred during the first postoperative year in 130 patients (1.9%) in the DAPT group, and in 197 patients (1.3%) in the monotherapy group. The score identified 32.9% of the patients in the DAPT group and 38.2% in monotherapy groups as having high bleeding risk. The area under the ROC-curve for the score was 0.67 (95%CI 0.62-0.72) for DAPT and 0.71 (0.67-0.74) for monotherapy. The hazard ratio for high bleeding risk vs. very low risk was 4.14 (2.07-8.26) for DAPT patients, and 4.95 (2.61-9.39) for monotherapy patients, both p < 0.001.

Conclusions: The PRECISE-DAPT identifies patients with increased risk for major bleeding after discharge following CABG with moderate accuracy. The accuracy is comparable to what previously has been reported for patients after PCI.

Background and aims: High bleeding risk (HBR) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) subtypes are critical in determining bleeding and cardiovascular event risk after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Methods and results: In 4476 ACS patients enrolled in the STOPDAPT-3, where the no-aspirin and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) strategies after PCI were randomly compared, the pre-specified subgroup analyses were conducted based on HBR/non-HBR and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)/non-ST-segment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS). The co-primary bleeding endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 or 5, and the co-primary cardiovascular endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, or ischaemic stroke at 1 month. Irrespective of the subgroups, the effect of no-aspirin compared with DAPT was not significant for the bleeding endpoint (HBR [N = 1803]: 7.27 and 7.91%, hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65-1.28; non-HBR [N = 2673]: 3.40 and 3.65%, HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.62-1.39; Pinteraction = 0.94; STEMI [N = 2553]: 6.58 and 6.56%, HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.74-1.35; NSTE-ACS [N = 1923]: 2.94 and 3.64%, HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49-1.32; Pinteraction = 0.45), and for the cardiovascular endpoint (HBR: 7.87 and 5.75%, HR 1.39, 95% CI 0.97-1.99; non-HBR: 2.56 and 2.67%, HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.60-1.53; Pinteraction = 0.22; STEMI: 6.07 and 5.46%, HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.81-1.54; NSTE-ACS: 3.03 and 1.71%, HR 1.78, 95% CI 0.97-3.27; Pinteraction = 0.18).

Conclusion: In patients with ACS undergoing PCI, the no-aspirin strategy compared with the DAPT strategy failed to reduce major bleeding events irrespective of HBR and ACS subtypes. The numerical excess risk of the no-aspirin strategy relative to the DAPT strategy for cardiovascular events was observed in patients with HBR and in patients with NSTE-ACS.