The use of dual antiplatelet therapy for a period longer than 12 months in patients who had received drug-eluting stents was not significantly more effective than aspirin monotherapy in reducing the rate of myocardial infarction or death from cardiac causes. These findings should be confirmed or refuted through larger, randomized clinical trials with longer-term follow-up. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00484926 and NCT00590174.)

AimsAlthough active-controlled trials with renin–angiotensin inhibitors are ethically mandated in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, clinicians and regulators often want to know how the experimental therapy would perform compared with placebo. The angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 was compared with enalapril in PARADIGM-HF. We made indirect comparisons of the effects of LCZ696 with putative placebos.Methods and resultsWe used the treatment-arm of the Studies Of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD-T) as the reference trial for comparison of an ACE inhibitor to placebo and the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity-Alternative trial (CHARM-Alternative) as the reference trial for comparison of an ARB to placebo. The hazard ratio of LCZ696 vs. a putative placebo was estimated through the product of the hazard ratio of LCZ696 vs. enalapril (active-control) and that of the historical active-control (enalapril or candesartan) vs. placebo. For the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization in PARADIGM-HF, the relative risk reduction with LCZ696 vs. a putative placebo from SOLVD-T was 43% (95%CI 34–50%; P < 0.0001) with similarly large effects on cardiovascular death (34%, 21–44%; P < 0.0001) and heart failure hospitalization (49%, 39–58%; P < 0.0001). For all-cause mortality, the reduction compared with a putative placebo was 28% (95%CI 15–39%; P < 0.0001). Putative placebo analyses based on CHARM-Alternative gave relative risk reductions of 39% (95%CI 27–48%; P < 0.0001) for the composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, 32% (95%CI 16–45%; P < 0.0001) for cardiovascular death, 46% (33–56%; P < 0.0001) for heart failure hospitalization, and 26% (95%CI 11–39%; P < 0.0001) for all-cause mortality.ConclusionThese indirect comparisons of LCZ696 with a putative placebo show that the strategy of combined angiotensin receptor blockade and neprilysin inhibition led to striking reductions in cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, as well as heart failure hospitalization. These benefits were obtained even though LCZ696 was added to comprehensive background beta-blocker and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist therapy.

ImportanceIn patients with coronary artery disease, some guidelines recommend initial statin treatment with high-intensity statins to achieve at least a 50% reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). An alternative approach is to begin with moderate-intensity statins and titrate to a specific LDL-C goal. These alternatives have not been compared head-to-head in a clinical trial involving patients with known coronary artery disease.ObjectiveTo assess whether a treat-to-target strategy is noninferior to a strategy of high-intensity statins for long-term clinical outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA randomized, multicenter, noninferiority trial in patients with a coronary disease diagnosis treated at 12 centers in South Korea (enrollment: September 9, 2016, through November 27, 2019; final follow-up: October 26, 2022).InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned to receive either the LDL-C target strategy, with an LDL-C level between 50 and 70 mg/dL as the target, or high-intensity statin treatment, which consisted of rosuvastatin, 20 mg, or atorvastatin, 40 mg.Main Outcomes and MeasuresPrimary end point was a 3-year composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or coronary revascularization with a noninferiority margin of 3.0 percentage points.ResultsAmong 4400 patients, 4341 patients (98.7%) completed the trial (mean [SD] age, 65.1 [9.9] years; 1228 females [27.9%]). In the treat-to-target group (n = 2200), which had 6449 person-years of follow-up, moderate-intensity and high-intensity dosing were used in 43% and 54%, respectively. The mean (SD) LDL-C level for 3 years was 69.1 (17.8) mg/dL in the treat-to-target group and 68.4 (20.1) mg/dL in the high-intensity statin group (n = 2200) (P = .21, compared with the treat-to-target group). The primary end point occurred in 177 patients (8.1%) in the treat-to-target group and 190 patients (8.7%) in the high-intensity statin group (absolute difference, –0.6 percentage points [upper boundary of the 1-sided 97.5% CI, 1.1 percentage points]; P &amp;lt; .001 for noninferiority).Conclusions and RelevanceAmong patients with coronary artery disease, a treat-to-target LDL-C strategy of 50 to 70 mg/dL as the goal was noninferior to a high-intensity statin therapy for the 3-year composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or coronary revascularization. These findings provide additional evidence supporting the suitability of a treat-to-target strategy that may allow a tailored approach with consideration for individual variability in drug response to statin therapy.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02579499

No abstract

No abstract