Cardiovascular outcomes associated with canagliflozin versus other non-gliflozin antidiabetic drugs: population based cohort study

Objective To evaluate the cardiovascular safety of canagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, in direct comparisons with DPP-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA), or sulfonylureas, as used in routine practice.

Design Population based retrospective cohort study.

Setting Nationwide sample of patients with type 2 diabetes from a large de-identified US commercial healthcare database (Optum Clinformatics Datamart).

Participants Three pairwise 1:1 propensity score matched cohorts of patients with type 2 diabetes 18 years and older who initiated canagliflozin or a comparator non-gliflozin antidiabetic agent (ie, a DPP-4i, a GLP-1RA, or a sulfonylurea) between April 2013 and September 2015.

Main outcome measures The primary outcomes were heart failure admission to hospital and a composite cardiovascular endpoint (comprised of being admitted to hospital for acute myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or hemorrhagic stroke). Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals were estimated in each propensity score matched cohort controlling for more than 100 baseline characteristics.

Results During a 30 month period, the hazard ratio for heart failure admission to hospital associated with canagliflozin was 0.70 (95% confidence interval 0.54 to 0.92) versus a DPP-4i (n=17 667 pairs), 0.61 (0.47 to 0.78) versus a GLP-1RA (20 539), and 0.51 (0.38 to 0.67) versus a sulfonylurea (17 354 ). The hazard ratio for the composite cardiovascular endpoint associated with canagliflozin was 0.89 (0.68 to 1.17) versus a DPP-4i, 1.03 (0.79 to 1.35) versus a GLP-1RA, and 0.86 (0.65 to 1.13) versus a sulfonylurea. Results were similar in sensitivity analyses further adjusting for baseline hemoglobin A1c levels and in subgroups of patients with and without prior cardiovascular disease or heart failure.

Conclusions In this large cohort study, canagliflozin was associated with a lower risk of heart failure admission to hospital and with a similar risk of myocardial infarction or stroke in direct comparisons with three different classes of non-gliflozin diabetes treatment alternatives as used in routine care.

Reference: BMJ 2018;360:k119

Advertisements

Migraine and risk of cardiovascular diseases: Danish population based matched cohort study

Objective To examine the risks of myocardial infarction, stroke (ischaemic and haemorrhagic), peripheral artery disease, venous thromboembolism, atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, and heart failure in patients with migraine and in a general population comparison cohort.

Design Nationwide, population based cohort study.

Setting All Danish hospitals and hospital outpatient clinics from 1995 to 2013.

Participants 51 032 patients with migraine and 510 320 people from the general population matched on age, sex, and calendar year.

Main outcome measures Comorbidity adjusted hazard ratios of cardiovascular outcomes based on Cox regression analysis.

Results Higher absolute risks were observed among patients with incident migraine than in the general population across most outcomes and follow-up periods. After 19 years of follow-up, the cumulative incidences per 1000 people for the migraine cohort compared with the general population were 25 v 17 for myocardial infarction, 45 v 25 for ischaemic stroke, 11 v 6 for haemorrhagic stroke, 13 v 11 for peripheral artery disease, 27 v 18 for venous thromboembolism, 47 v 34 for atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, and 19 v 18 for heart failure. Correspondingly, migraine was positively associated with myocardial infarction (adjusted hazard ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.36 to 1.64), ischaemic stroke (2.26, 2.11 to 2.41), and haemorrhagic stroke (1.94, 1.68 to 2.23), as well as venous thromboembolism (1.59, 1.45 to 1.74) and atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter (1.25, 1.16 to 1.36). No meaningful association was found with peripheral artery disease (adjusted hazard ratio 1.12, 0.96 to 1.30) or heart failure (1.04, 0.93 to 1.16). The associations, particularly for stroke outcomes, were stronger during the short term (0-1 years) after diagnosis than the long term (up to 19 years), in patients with aura than in those without aura, and in women than in men. In a subcohort of patients, the associations persisted after additional multivariable adjustment for body mass index and smoking.

Conclusions Migraine was associated with increased risks of myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, haemorrhagic stroke, venous thromboembolism, and atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter. Migraine may be an important risk factor for most cardiovascular diseases.

Reference: BMJ 2018;360:k96

Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in patients with stable peripheral or carotid artery disease: an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background

Patients with peripheral artery disease have an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Antiplatelet agents are widely used to reduce these complications.

Methods

This was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial for which patients were recruited at 602 hospitals, clinics, or community practices from 33 countries across six continents. Eligible patients had a history of peripheral artery disease of the lower extremities (previous peripheral bypass surgery or angioplasty, limb or foot amputation, intermittent claudication with objective evidence of peripheral artery disease), of the carotid arteries (previous carotid artery revascularisation or asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis of at least 50%), or coronary artery disease with an ankle–brachial index of less than 0·90. After a 30-day run-in period, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive oral rivaroxaban (2·5 mg twice a day) plus aspirin (100 mg once a day), rivaroxaban twice a day (5 mg with aspirin placebo once a day), or to aspirin once a day (100 mg and rivaroxaban placebo twice a day). Randomisation was computer generated. Each treatment group was double dummy, and the patient, investigators, and central study staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke; the primary peripheral artery disease outcome was major adverse limb events including major amputation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01776424, and is closed to new participants.

Findings

Between March 12, 2013, and May 10, 2016, we enrolled 7470 patients with peripheral artery disease from 558 centres. The combination of rivaroxaban plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone reduced the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (126 [5%] of 2492 vs174 [7%] of 2504; hazard ratio [HR] 0·72, 95% CI 0·57–0·90, p=0·0047), and major adverse limb events including major amputation (32 [1%] vs 60 [2%]; HR 0·54 95% CI 0·35–0·82, p=0·0037). Rivaroxaban 5 mg twice a day compared with aspirin alone did not significantly reduce the composite endpoint (149 [6%] of 2474 vs 174 [7%] of 2504; HR 0·86, 95% CI 0·69–1·08, p=0·19), but reduced major adverse limb events including major amputation (40 [2%] vs 60 [2%]; HR 0·67, 95% CI 0·45–1·00, p=0·05). The median duration of treatment was 21 months. The use of the rivaroxaban plus aspirin combination increased major bleeding compared with the aspirin alone group (77 [3%] of 2492 vs 48 [2%] of 2504; HR 1·61, 95% CI 1·12–2·31, p=0·0089), which was mainly gastrointestinal. Similarly, major bleeding occurred in 79 (3%) of 2474 patients with rivaroxaban 5 mg, and in 48 (2%) of 2504 in the aspirin alone group (HR 1·68, 95% CI 1·17–2·40; p=0·0043).

Interpretation

Low-dose rivaroxaban taken twice a day plus aspirin once a day reduced major adverse cardiovascular and limb events when compared with aspirin alone. Although major bleeding was increased, fatal or critical organ bleeding was not. This combination therapy represents an important advance in the management of patients with peripheral artery disease. Rivaroxaban alone did not significantly reduce major adverse cardiovascular events compared with asprin alone, but reduced major adverse limb events and increased major bleeding.

NHS Health Check

Public Health England (PHE) has published NHS Health Check: stocktake and action plan.  This report provides a stocktake of the NHS Health Check programme as PHE approaches the end of the first 5-year cycle of the programme and outlines an action plan for the next cycle.  PHE has also published Using the NHS Health Check programme to prevent CVD which explores how the NHS Health Check is playing and important role in the prevention and early detection of cardiovascular disease.

The effect of physical activity on mortality and cardiovascular disease in 130 000 people from 17 high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries: the PURE study

Rivaroxaban with or without Aspirin in Stable Cardiovascular Disease

BACKGROUND

We evaluated whether rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary cardiovascular prevention.

METHODS

In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months.

RESULTS

The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=−4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events. (Funded by Bayer; COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01776424.)

Effects of Once-Weekly Exenatide on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

The cardiovascular effects of adding once-weekly treatment with exenatide to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes are unknown.

METHODS

We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes, with or without previous cardiovascular disease, to receive subcutaneous injections of extended-release exenatide at a dose of 2 mg or matching placebo once weekly. The primary composite outcome was the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The coprimary hypotheses were that exenatide, administered once weekly, would be noninferior to placebo with respect to safety and superior to placebo with respect to efficacy.

RESULTS

In all, 14,752 patients (of whom 10,782 [73.1%] had previous cardiovascular disease) were followed for a median of 3.2 years (interquartile range, 2.2 to 4.4). A primary composite outcome event occurred in 839 of 7356 patients (11.4%; 3.7 events per 100 person-years) in the exenatide group and in 905 of 7396 patients (12.2%; 4.0 events per 100 person-years) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.00), with the intention-to-treat analysis indicating that exenatide, administered once weekly, was noninferior to placebo with respect to safety (P<0.001 for noninferiority) but was not superior to placebo with respect to efficacy (P=0.06 for superiority). The rates of death from cardiovascular causes, fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, and hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, and the incidence of acute pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, medullary thyroid carcinoma, and serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with type 2 diabetes with or without previous cardiovascular disease, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ significantly between patients who received exenatide and those who received placebo. (Funded by Amylin Pharmaceuticals; EXSCEL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01144338.)

Reference: N Engl J Med 2017; 377:1228-1239September 28, 2017