BACKGROUND: Patients at high risk for bleeding who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) often receive bare-metal stents followed by 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy. We studied a polymer-free and carrier-free drug-coated stent that transfers umirolimus (also known as biolimus A9), a highly lipophilic sirolimus analogue, into the vessel wall over a period of 1 month. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind trial, we compared the drug-coated stent with a very similar bare-metal stent in patients with a high risk of bleeding who underwent PCI. All patients received 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy. The primary safety end point, tested for both noninferiority and superiority, was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis. The primary efficacy end point was clinically driven target-lesion revascularization. RESULTS: We enrolled 2466 patients. At 390 days, the primary safety end point had occurred in 112 patients (9.4%) in the drug-coated-stent group and in 154 patients (12.9%) in the bare-metal-stent group (risk difference, -3.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.1 to -1.0; hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.91; P<0.001 for noninferiority and P=0.005 for superiority). During the same time period, clinically driven target-lesion revascularization was needed in 59 patients (5.1%) in the drug-coated-stent group and in 113 patients (9.8%) in the baremetal-stent group (risk difference, -4.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -6.9 to -2.6; hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.69; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients at high risk for bleeding who underwent PCI, a polymer-free umirolimus-coated stent was superior to a bare-metal stent with respect to the primary safety and efficacy end points when used with a 1-month course of dual antiplatelet therapy. (Funded by Biosensors Europe; LEADERS FREE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01623180.).

No abstract

SummaryBackgroundPatients with dilated cardiomyopathy whose symptoms and cardiac function have recovered often ask whether their medications can be stopped. The safety of withdrawing treatment in this situation is unknown.MethodsWe did an open-label, pilot, randomised trial to examine the effect of phased withdrawal of heart failure medications in patients with previous dilated cardiomyopathy who were now asymptomatic, whose left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) had improved from less than 40% to 50% or greater, whose left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) had normalised, and who had an N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-pro-BNP) concentration less than 250 ng/L. Patients were recruited from a network of hospitals in the UK, assessed at one centre (Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK), and randomly assigned (1:1) to phased withdrawal or continuation of treatment. After 6 months, patients in the continued treatment group had treatment withdrawn by the same method. The primary endpoint was a relapse of dilated cardiomyopathy within 6 months, defined by a reduction in LVEF of more than 10% and to less than 50%, an increase in LVEDV by more than 10% and to higher than the normal range, a two-fold rise in NT-pro-BNP concentration and to more than 400 ng/L, or clinical evidence of heart failure, at which point treatments were re-established. The primary analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02859311.FindingsBetween April 21, 2016, and Aug 22, 2017, 51 patients were enrolled. 25 were randomly assigned to the treatment withdrawal group and 26 to continue treatment. Over the first 6 months, 11 (44%) patients randomly assigned to treatment withdrawal met the primary endpoint of relapse compared with none of those assigned to continue treatment (Kaplan-Meier estimate of event rate 45·7% [95% CI 28·5–67·2]; p=0·0001). After 6 months, 25 (96%) of 26 patients assigned initially to continue treatment attempted its withdrawal. During the following 6 months, nine patients met the primary endpoint of relapse (Kaplan-Meier estimate of event rate 36·0% [95% CI 20·6–57·8]). No deaths were reported in either group and three serious adverse events were reported in the treatment withdrawal group: hospital admissions for non-cardiac chest pain, sepsis, and an elective procedure.InterpretationMany patients deemed to have recovered from dilated cardiomyopathy will relapse following treatment withdrawal. Until robust predictors of relapse are defined, treatment should continue indefinitely.FundingBritish Heart Foundation, Alexander Jansons Foundation, Royal Brompton Hospital and Imperial College London, Imperial College Biomedical Research Centre, Wellcome Trust, and Rosetrees Trust.

Abstract:Propensity scores (PS) are an increasingly popular method to adjust for confounding in observational studies. PS methods have theoretical advantages over traditional covariate adjustment, but their relative performance in real-word scenarios is poorly characterized. We used datasets from four large-scale cardiovascular observational studies (PROMETHEUS, ADAPT-DES, THIN, and CHARM) to compare the performance of traditional covariate adjustment and four commonly used PS methods: matching, stratification, inverse probability weighting and use of propensity score as a covariate. We found that stratification performed poorly with few outcome events, and inverse probability weighting gave imprecise estimates of treatment effect and undue influence to a small number of observations when substantial confounding was present. Covariate adjustment and matching performed well in all of our examples, although matching tended to give less precise estimates in some cases. PS methods are not necessarily superior to traditional covariate adjustment, and care should be taken to select the most suitable method.

No abstract

SummaryBackgroundThe emergence and spread of high levels of HIV-1 drug resistance in resource-limited settings where combination antiretroviral treatment has been scaled up could compromise the effectiveness of national HIV treatment programmes. We aimed to estimate changes in the prevalence of HIV-1 drug resistance in treatment-naive individuals with HIV since initiation of rollout in resource-limited settings.MethodsWe did a systematic search for studies and conference abstracts published between January, 2001, and July, 2011, and included additional data from the WHO HIV drug resistance surveillance programme. We assessed the prevalence of drug-resistance mutations in untreated individuals with respect to time since rollout in a series of random-effects meta-regression models.FindingsStudy-level data were available for 26 102 patients from sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and Latin America. We recorded no difference between chronic and recent infection on the prevalence of one or more drug-resistance mutations for any region. East Africa had the highest estimated rate of increase at 29% per year (95% CI 15 to 45; p=0·0001) since rollout, with an estimated prevalence of HIV-1 drug resistance at 8 years after rollout of 7·4% (4·3 to 12·7). We recorded an annual increase of 14% (0% to 29%; p=0·054) in southern Africa and a non-significant increase of 3% (–0·9 to 16; p=0·618) in west and central Africa. There was no change in resistance over time in Latin America, and because of much country-level heterogeneity the meta-regression analysis was not appropriate for Asia. With respect to class of antiretroviral, there were substantial increases in resistance to non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI) in east Africa (36% per year [21 to 52]; p<0·0001) and southern Africa (23% per year [7 to 42]; p=0·0049). No increase was noted for the other drug classes in any region.InterpretationOur findings suggest a significant increase in prevalence of drug resistance over time since antiretroviral rollout in regions of sub-Saharan Africa; this rise is driven by NNRTI resistance in studies from east and southern Africa. The findings are of concern and draw attention to the need for enhanced surveillance and drug-resistance prevention efforts by national HIV treatment programmes. Nevertheless, estimated levels, although increasing, are not unexpected in view of the large expansion of antiretroviral treatment coverage seen in low-income and middle-income countries—no changes in antiretroviral treatment guidelines are warranted at the moment.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme

SummaryBackgroundPretreatment drug resistance in people initiating or re-initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART) containing non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) might compromise HIV control in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We aimed to assess the scale of this problem and whether it is associated with the intiation or re-initiation of ART in people who have had previous exposure to antiretroviral drugs.MethodsThis study was a systematic review and meta-regression analysis. We assessed regional prevalence of pretreatment drug resistance and risk of pretreatment drug resistance in people initiating ART who reported previous ART exposure. We systematically screened publications and unpublished datasets for pretreatment drug-resistance data in individuals in LMICs initiating or re-initiating first-line ART from LMICs. We searched for studies in PubMed and Embase and conference abstracts and presentations from the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, the International AIDS Society Conference, and the International Drug Resistance Workshop for the period Jan 1, 2001, to Dec 31, 2016. To assess the prevalence of drug resistance within a specified region at any specific timepoint, we extracted study level data and pooled prevalence estimates within the region using an empty logistic regression model with a random effect at the study level. We used random effects meta-regression to relate sampling year to prevalence of pretreatment drug resistance within geographical regions.FindingsWe identified 358 datasets that contributed data to our analyses, representing 56 044 adults in 63 countries. Prevalence estimates of pretreatment NNRTI resistance in 2016 were 11·0% (7·5–15·9) in southern Africa, 10·1% (5·1–19·4) in eastern Africa, 7·2% (2·9–16·5) in western and central Africa, and 9·4% (6·6–13·2) in Latin America and the Caribbean. There were substantial increases in pretreatment NNRTI resistance per year in all regions. The yearly increases in the odds of pretreatment drug resistance were 23% (95% CI 16–29) in southern Africa, 17% (5–30) in eastern Africa, 17% (6–29) in western and central Africa, 11% (5–18) in Latin America and the Caribbean, and 11% (2–20) in Asia. Estimated increases in the absolute prevalence of pretreatment drug resistance between 2015 and 2016 ranged from 0·3% in Asia to 1·8% in southern Africa.InterpretationPretreatment drug resistance is increasing at substantial rate in LMICs, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. In 2016, the prevalence of pretreatment NNRTI resistance was near WHO's 10% threshold for changing first-line ART in southern and eastern Africa and Latin America, underscoring the need for routine national HIV drug-resistance surveillance and review of national policies for first-line ART regimen composition.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation and World Health Organization.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.