BACKGROUND Appropriate antithrombotic regimens for patients with atrial fibrillation who have an acute coronary syndrome or have undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are unclear. METHODS In an international trial with a two-by-two factorial design, we randomly assigned patients with atrial fibrillation who had an acute coronary syndrome or had undergone PCI and were planning to take a P2Y 12 inhibitor to receive apixaban or a vitamin K antagonist and to receive aspirin or matching placebo for 6 months. The primary outcome was major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. Secondary outcomes included death or hospitalization and a composite of ischemic events. RESULTS Enrollment included 4614 patients from 33 countries. There were no significant interactions between the two randomization factors on the primary or secondary outcomes. Major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding was noted in 10.5% of the patients receiving apixaban, as compared with 14.7% of those receiving a vitamin K antagonist (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.81; P<0.001 for both noninferiority and superiority), and in 16.1% of the patients receiving aspirin, as compared with 9.0% of those receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.59 to 2.24; P<0.001). Patients in the apixaban group had a lower incidence of death or hospitalization than those in the vitamin K antagonist group (23.5% vs. 27.4%; hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.93; P = 0.002) and a similar incidence of ischemic events. Patients in the aspirin group had an incidence of death or hospitalization and of ischemic events that was similar to that in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS In patients with atrial fibrillation and a recent acute coronary syndrome or PCI treated with a P2Y 12 inhibitor, an antithrombotic regimen that included apixaban, without aspirin, resulted in less bleeding and fewer hospitalizations without significant differences in the incidence of ischemic events than regimens that included a vitamin K antagonist, aspirin, or both. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer; AUGUSTUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02415400.

IMPORTANCE Type 2 diabetes is associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) risk. Prior trials have demonstrated CV safety of 3 dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors but have included limited numbers of patients with high CV risk and chronic kidney disease. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of linagliptin, a selective DPP-4 inhibitor, on CV outcomes and kidney outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk of CV and kidney events. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter noninferiority trial conducted from August 2013 to August 2016 at 605 clinic sites in 27 countries among adults with type 2 diabetes, hemoglobin A 1c of 6.5% to 10.0%, high CV risk (history of vascular disease and urine-albumin creatinine ratio [UACR] >200 mg/g), and high renal risk (reduced eGFR and micro-or macroalbuminuria). Participants with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) were excluded. Final follow-up occurred on January 18, 2018. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive linagliptin, 5 mg once daily (n = 3494), or placebo once daily (n = 3485) added to usual care. Other glucose-lowering medications or insulin could be added based on clinical need and local clinical guidelines. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary outcome was time to first occurrence of the composite of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. Criteria for noninferiority of linagliptin vs placebo was defined by the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) of linagliptin relative to placebo being less than 1.3. Secondary outcome was time to first occurrence of adjudicated death due to renal failure, ESRD, or sustained 40% or higher decrease in eGFR from baseline. RESULTS Of 6991 enrollees, 6979 (mean age, 65.9 years; eGFR, 54.6 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ; 80.1% with UACR >30 mg/g) received at least 1 dose of study medication and 98.7% completed the study. During a median follow-up of 2.2 years, the primary outcome occurred in 434 of 3494 (12.4%) and 420 of 3485 (12.1%) in the linagliptin and placebo groups, respectively, (absolute incidence rate difference, 0.13 [95% CI, −0.63 to 0.90] per 100 person-years) (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.89-1.17; P < .001 for noninferiority). The kidney outcome occurred in 327 of 3494 (9.4%) and 306 of 3485 (8.8%), respectively (absolute incidence rate difference, 0.22 [95% CI, −0.52 to 0.97] per 100 person-years) (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.89-1.22; P = .62). Adverse events occurred in 2697 (77.2%) and 2723 (78.1%) patients in the linagliptin and placebo groups; 1036 (29.7%) and 1024 (29.4%) had 1 or more episodes of hypoglycemia; and there were 9 (0.3%) vs 5 (0.1%) events of adjudication-confirmed acute pancreatitis. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among adults with type 2 diabetes and high CV and renal risk, linagliptin added to usual care compared with placebo added to usual care resulted in a noninferior risk of a composite CV outcome over a median 2.2 years.

Background COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. MethodsWe did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0•3-0•7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed. Findings From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28 899 (34•8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (41•3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0•86 [95% CI 0•59-1•22], p=0•40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3•64 [95% CI 1•61-8•27], p=0•0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group.Interpretation In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagul...

In patients with AF, renal impairment was associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events and bleeding. When compared with warfarin, apixaban treatment reduced the rate of stroke, death, and major bleeding, regardless of renal function. Patients with impaired renal function seemed to have the greatest reduction in major bleeding with apixaban.