BACKGROUND Many patients have symptoms suggestive of coronary artery disease (CAD) and are often evaluated with the use of diagnostic testing, although there are limited data from randomized trials to guide care. METHODS We randomly assigned 10,003 symptomatic patients to a strategy of initial anatomical testing with the use of coronary computed tomographic angiography (CTA) or to functional testing (exercise electrocardiography, nuclear stress testing, or stress echocardiography). The composite primary end point was death, myocardial infarction, hospitalization for unstable angina, or major procedural complication. Secondary end points included invasive cardiac catheterization that did not show obstructive CAD and radiation exposure. RESULTS The mean age of the patients was 60.8±8.3 years, 52.7% were women, and 87.7% had chest pain or dyspnea on exertion. The mean pretest likelihood of obstructive CAD was 53.3±21.4%. Over a median follow-up period of 25 months, a primary end-point event occurred in 164 of 4996 patients in the CTA group (3.3%) and in 151 of 5007 (3.0%) in the functional-testing group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.83 to 1.29; P = 0.75). CTA was associated with fewer catheterizations showing no obstructive CAD than was functional testing (3.4% vs. 4.3%, P = 0.02), although more patients in the CTA group underwent catheterization within 90 days after randomization (12.2% vs. 8.1%). The median cumulative radiation exposure per patient was lower in the CTA group than in the functional-testing group (10.0 mSv vs. 11.3 mSv), but 32.6% of the patients in the functional-testing group had no exposure, so the overall exposure was higher in the CTA group (mean, 12.0 mSv vs. 10.1 mSv; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS In symptomatic patients with suspected CAD who required noninvasive testing, a strategy of initial CTA, as compared with functional testing, did not improve clinical outcomes over a median follow-up of 2 years. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; PROMISE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01174550.)

Context No randomized trials have examined treatments for prescription opioid dependence, despite its increasing prevalence. Objective To evaluate the efficacy of brief and extended buprenorphine-naloxone treatment, with different counseling intensities, for patients dependent upon prescription opioids. Setting, Participants 653 treatment-seeking outpatients dependent on prescription opioids, at 10 U.S. sites from June 2006-July 2009. Design Multi-site, randomized clinical trial, using a two-phase adaptive treatment research design. Brief treatment (Phase 1) included 2-week buprenorphine-naloxone stabilization, 2-week taper, and 8-week post-medication follow-up. Patients with successful opioid use outcomes exited the study; unsuccessful patients entered Phase 2: extended (12-week) buprenorphine-naloxone treatment, 4-week taper, and 8-week post-medication follow-up. Main outcome measures Pre-defined “successful outcome” in each phase: composite measures indicating minimal or no opioid use, based on urine-confirmed self-reports. Interventions In both phases, patients were randomized to Standard Medical Management (SMM) or SMM+Opioid Drug Counseling (ODC); all received buprenorphine-naloxone. Results During Phase 1, only 6.6% (43/653) of patients had successful outcomes, with no difference between the SMM and SMM+ODC. In contrast, 49.2% (177/360) attained successful outcomes in Phase 2 during extended buprenorphine-naloxone treatment (week 12), with no difference between counseling conditions. Success rates 8 weeks after completing the buprenorphine-naloxone taper (Phase 2, week 24) dropped sharply to 8.6% (31/360), again with no counseling difference. In secondary analyses, successful Phase 2 outcomes were far more common while taking buprenorphine-naloxone than 8 weeks post-taper (49.2% (177/360) vs. 8.6% (31/360), p<0.001). Chronic pain did not affect opioid use outcomes; a history of ever using heroin was associated with lower Phase 2 success rates while taking buprenorphine-naloxone. Conclusions Prescription opioid-dependent patients are most likely to reduce opioid use during buprenorphine-naloxone treatment; if tapered off buprenorphine-naloxone, even after 12 weeks of treatment, the likelihood of unsuccessful outcome is extremely high, even among patients receiving counseling in addition to medical management. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00316277

No abstract

Background: The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for the treatment of blood cholesterol found little evidence to support the use of nonstatin lipid-modifying medications to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events. Since publication of these guidelines, multiple randomized controlled trials evaluating nonstatin lipid-modifying medications have been published. Methods: We performed a systematic review to assess the magnitude of benefit and/or harm from additional lipid-modifying therapies compared with statins alone in individuals with known ASCVD or at high risk of ASCVD. We included data from randomized controlled trials with a sample size of >1 000 patients and designed for follow-up >1 year. We performed a comprehensive literature search and identified 10 randomized controlled trials for intensive review, including trials evaluating ezetimibe, niacin, cholesterol-ester transfer protein inhibitors, and PCSK9 inhibitors. The prespecified primary outcome for this review was a composite of fatal cardiovascular events, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. Results: The cardiovascular benefit of nonstatin lipid-modifying therapies varied significantly according to the class of medication. There was evidence for reduced ASCVD morbidity with ezetimibe and 2 PSCK9 inhibitors. Reduced ASCVD mortality rate was reported for 1 PCSK9 inhibitor. The use of ezetimibe/simvastatin versus simvastatin in IMPROVE-IT (Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial) reduced the primary outcome by 1.8% over 7 years (hazard ratio: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.84–0.96], 7-year number needed to treat: 56). The PSCK9 inhibitor evolocumab in the FOURIER study (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research with PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects with Elevated Risk) decreased the primary outcome by 1.5% over 2.2 years (hazard ratio: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.73–0.88; 2.2=year number needed to treat: 67). In ODYSSEY OUTCOMES (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab), alirocumab reduced the primary outcome by 1.6% over 2.8 years (hazard ratio: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.79–0.93; 2.8-year number needed to treat: 63). For ezetimibe and the PSCK9 inhibitors, rates of musculoskeletal, neurocognitive, gastrointestinal, or other adverse event risks did not differ between the treatment and control groups. For patients at high risk of ASCVD already on background statin therapy, there was minimal evidence for improved ASCVD risk or adverse events with cholesterol-ester transfer protein inhibitors. There was no evidence of benefit for the addition of niacin to statin therapy. Direct comparisons of the results of the 10 randomized controlled trials were limited by significant differences in sample size, duration of follow-up, and reported primary outcomes. Conclusions: In a systematic review of the evidence for adding nonstatin lipid-modifying therapies to statins to reduce ASCVD risk, we found evidence of benefit for ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors but not for niacin or cholesterol-ester transfer protein inhibitors.

No abstract