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 ; 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. FUNDING Bayer AG. 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, i...

Digoxin did not reduce overall mortality, but it reduced the rate of hospitalization both overall and for worsening heart failure. These findings define more precisely the role of digoxin in the management of chronic heart failure.

IMPORTANCE Guidelines for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) recommend intensive statin therapy and adding nonstatin therapy if low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels are 70 mg/dL or more. Compliance with guidelines is often low.OBJECTIVE To track LDL-C treatment patterns in the US over 2 years. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS GOULD is a prospective observational registry study involving multiple centers. Patients with ASCVD receiving any lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) were eligible. Between December 2016 and July 2018, patients were enrolled in 1 of 3 cohorts: (1) those currently receiving proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor (PCSK9i) and 2 groups not receiving PCSK9i drugs, with (2) LDL-C levels of 100 mg/dL or more or (3) LDL-C levels of 70 to 99 mg/dL. Patients had medical record reviews and telephone interviews every 6 months. Analysis was done on data collected as of October 5, 2020. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was the change in LLT use in 2 years. Secondary outcomes included the number of LDL-C measurements, LDL-C levels, and responses to structured physician and patient questionnaires over 2 years.RESULTS A total of 5006 patients were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 67.8 [9.9] years; 1985 women [39.7%]; 4312 White individuals [86.1%]). At 2 years, 885 (17.1%) had LLT intensification. In the cohorts with LDL-C levels of 100 mg/dL or more and 70 to 99 mg/dL, LLT intensification occurred in 403 (22.4%) and 383 (14.4%), respectively; statins were intensified in 115 (6.4%) and 168 (6.3%), ezetimibe added in 123 (6.8%) and 118 (4.5%), and PCSK9i added in 114 (6.3%) and 58 (2.2%), respectively. In the PCSK9i cohort, 508 of 554 (91.7%) were still taking PCSK9i at 2 years. Lipid panels were measured at least once over 2 years in 3768 patients (88.5%; PCSK9i cohort, 492 [96.1%]; LDL-C levels Ն100 mg/dL or more, 1294 [85.9%]; 70-99 mg/dL, 1982 [88.6%]). Levels of LDL-C fell from medians (interquartile ranges) of 120 (108-141) mg/dL to 95 (73-118) mg/dL in the cohort with LDL-C levels of 100 mg/dL or more, 82 (75-89) to 77 (65-90) mg/dL in the cohort with LDL-C levels of 70 to 99 mg/dL, and 67 (42-104) mg/dL to 67 (42-96) mg/dL in the PCSK9i cohort. Levels of LDL-C less than 70 mg/dL at 2 years were achieved by 308 patients (21.0%) and 758 patients (33.9%) in the cohorts with LDL-C levels of 100 mg/dL or more and 70 to 99 mg/dL, respectively, and 272 patients (52.4%) in the PCSK9i cohort. At 2 years, practice characteristics were associated with more LLT intensification (teaching vs nonteaching hospitals, 148 of 589 [25.1%] vs 600 of 3607 [16.6%]; lipid protocols or none, 359 of 1612 [22.3%] vs 389 of 2584 [15.1%]; cardiology, 452 of 2087 [21.7%] vs internal or family medicine, 204 of 1745 [11.7%] and other, 92 of 364 [25.3%]; all P < .001) and achievement of LDL-C less than 70 mg/dL (teaching vs nonteaching hospitals, 173 of 488 [35.5%] vs 823 of 2986 [27.6%]; lipid protocols vs none, 451 of 1411 [32.0%] vs 545 of 2063 [26.4%]; both P < .001; cardi...

No abstract

SUMMARYHeavier than air flying machines are impossible. Lord Kelvin, President, Royal Society of England, 1895 What is known and Objective: Warfarin, an oral anticoagulant, which has been in clinical use for over sixty years, remains a challenge for clinicians to utilize, given the multiplicity of items which can limit its efficacy. Our objective is to review the evidence and comment on whether INR control can be better than has been currently reported in various studies. Comment: The duration of time a patient's international normalized ratio (INR) is maintained within the therapeutic range (time in the therapeutic range, TTR) for his or her particular indication for the drug impacts the effectiveness and safety of warfarin therapy. Maintaining a therapeutic INR while on warfarin is difficult, and numerous studies employing various strategies confirm the challenge, but not the impossibility of achieving a TTR above 70%. What is new and Conclusion: Maintaining a therapeutic INR requires a dedicated multi-faceted approach. With diligence, skill and various therapeutic strategies, a TTR >70% can be achieved. WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVEFirst described as responsible for the 'sweet clover disease' in cattle in the 1920s, warfarin and its related compounds have been used in clinical medicine as anticoagulants since the 1940s. Published data and clinical experience, however, have demonstrated time and time again how challenging it is to maintain the degree of anticoagulation within the desired therapeutic range (time in the therapeutic range, TTR). Indeed, despite herculean efforts and a number of clinical strategies, it has appeared impossible to achieve a TTR much >70%. Dare we state, invoking thoughts of Lord Kelvin, that 'maintaining the TTR with warfarin >70% is impossible'? Our objective is to comment on these strategies on the basis of published research and to examine our own experience in an exploration of this provocative statement. COMMENTThe earliest clinical users of these oral anticoagulants noted that there were wide variations in the dose requirements for individual patients 1 . Numerous and complex food and drug interactions complicate dosing strategies 2 , and more recently appreciated genetic polymorphisms 3 serve to further increase the clinician's challenge. Yet it is clear the stakes are high: if the TTR is less than around 60%, some data suggest that much of the benefit of utilizing warfarin is lost and we might as well be using aspirin 4 ! An early strategy aimed at improving TTR was based on the hypothesis that a clinic or service, which focused solely on managing the dosage of warfarin, could achieve better results than a practitioner who was likely to be distracted by a broader array of health issues on a daily basis. A number of studies have been conducted to determine the validity of this assumption, but not all reported their results in the format of TTR. A paper from 1993 found that over 70% of patients in the anticoagulation clinic maintained their INR within the therapeutic range mo...