BACKGROUND Monotherapy with a P2Y 12 inhibitor after a minimum period of dual antiplatelet therapy is an emerging approach to reduce the risk of bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS In a double-blind trial, we examined the effect of ticagrelor alone as compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin with regard to clinically relevant bleeding among patients who were at high risk for bleeding or an ischemic event and had undergone PCI. After 3 months of treatment with ticagrelor plus aspirin, patients who had not had a major bleeding event or ischemic event continued to take ticagrelor and were randomly assigned to receive aspirin or placebo for 1 year. The primary end point was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding. We also evaluated the composite end point of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, using a noninferiority hypothesis with an absolute margin of 1.6 percentage points. RESULTS We enrolled 9006 patients, and 7119 underwent randomization after 3 months. Between randomization and 1 year, the incidence of the primary end point was 4.0% among patients randomly assigned to receive ticagrelor plus placebo and 7.1% among patients assigned to receive ticagrelor plus aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 0.68; P<0.001). The difference in risk between the groups was similar for BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding (incidence, 1.0% among patients receiving ticagrelor plus placebo and 2.0% among patients receiving ticagrelor plus aspirin; hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.74). The incidence of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke was 3.9% in both groups (difference, −0.06 percentage points; 95% CI, −0.97 to 0.84; hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.25; P<0.001 for noninferiority). CONCLUSIONS Among high-risk patients who underwent PCI and completed 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy, ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with a lower incidence of clinically relevant bleeding than ticagrelor plus aspirin, with no higher risk of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. (Funded by AstraZeneca; TWILIGHT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02270242.

No abstract

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.

Simple risk scores of baseline clinical variables may be useful to predict risks for ischemic and bleeding events after PCI with DES, thereby facilitating clinical decisions surrounding the optimal duration of DAPT. (Patterns of Non-Adherence to Anti-Platelet Regimen in Stented Patients [PARIS]; NCT00998127).

Background Relative risk reduction with statin therapy has been consistent across nearly all subgroups studied to date. However, in analyses of two randomized controlled primary prevention trials (ASCOT and JUPITER), statin therapy led to a greater relative risk reduction among a subgroup at high genetic risk. Here, we sought to confirm this observation in a third primary prevention randomized controlled trial. Additionally, we assessed if those at high genetic risk had a greater burden of subclinical coronary atherosclerosis. Methods We studied participants from a randomized controlled trial of primary prevention with statin therapy (WOSCOPS, n=4,910) and two observational cohort studies (CARDIA and BioImage, n=1,154 and 4,392). For each participant, we calculated a polygenic risk score (PRS) derived from up to 57 common DNA sequence variants previously associated with coronary heart disease (CHD). We compared the relative efficacy of statin therapy in those at high genetic risk (top quintile of PRS) versus all others (WOSCOP)S as well as the association between the PRS and coronary artery calcification (CARDIA) and carotid artery plaque burden (BioImage). Results Among WOSCOPS trial participants at high genetic risk, statin therapy was associated with a relative risk reduction of 44% (95% CI, 22%–60%; P < 0.001) whereas in all others, relative risk reduction was 24% (95% CI 8%–37%; P = 0.004) despite similar LDL cholesterol lowering. In a study-level meta-analysis across the WOSCOPS, ASCOT, and JUPITER primary prevention, relative risk reduction in those at high genetic risk was 46% versus 26% in all others (P for heterogeneity = 0.05). Across all three studies, the absolute risk reduction with statin therapy was 3.6% (95% CI, 2.0%–5.1%) among those in the high genetic risk group and was 1.3% (95% CI, 0.6%–1.9%) in all others. Each standard deviation increase in the polygenic risk score was associated with 1.32-fold (95% CI, 1.04–1.68) greater likelihood of having coronary artery calcification and 9.7% higher (95% CI, 2.2–17.8%) burden of carotid plaque. Conclusions Those at high genetic risk have a greater burden of subclinical atherosclerosis and derive greater relative and absolute benefit from statin therapy to prevent a first CHD event. Clinical Trial registration WOSCOPS was carried out and completed prior to the requirement for clinical trial registration. BioImage: NCT00738725 (https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00738725). CARDIA: NCT00005130 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00005130).

No abstract

Detection of subclinical carotid or coronary atherosclerosis improves risk predictions and reclassification compared with conventional risk factors, with comparable results for either modality. Cost-effective analyses are warranted to define the optimal roles of these complementary techniques. (BioImage Study: A Clinical Study of Burden of Atherosclerotic Disease in an At-Risk Population; NCT00738725).

Flexible working hours can have several meanings and can be arranged in a number of ways to suit the worker and/or employer. Two aspects of "flexible" arrangement of working hours were considered: one more subjected to company control and decision (variability) and one more connected to individual discretion and autonomy (flexibility). The aim of the study was to analyze these two dimensions in relation to health and well-being, taking into consideration the interaction with some relevant background variables related to demographics plus working and social conditions. The dataset of the Third European Survey on working conditions, conducted in 2000 and involving 21,505 workers, was used. Nineteen health disorders and four psycho-social conditions were tested by means of multiple logistic regression analysis, in which mutually adjusted odds ratios were calculated for age, gender, marital status, number of children, occupation, mode of employment, shift work, night work, time pressure, mental and physical workload, job satisfaction, and participation in work organization. The flexibility and variability of working hours appeared inversely related to health and psycho-social well-being: the most favorable effects were associated with higher flexibility and lower variability. The analysis of the interactions with the twelve intervening variables showed that physical work, age, and flexibility are the three most important factors affecting health and well-being. Flexibility resulted as the most important factor to influence work satisfaction; the second to affect family and social commitment and the ability to do the same job when 60 years old, as well as trauma, overall fatigue, irritability, and headache; and the third to influence heart disease, stomachache, anxiety, injury, and the feeling that health being at risk because of work. Variability was the third most important factor influencing family and social commitments. Moreover, shift and night work confirmed to have a significant influence on sleep, digestive and cardiovascular troubles, as well and health and safety at work. Time pressure also showed a relevant influence, both on individual stress and social life. Therefore, suitable arrangements of flexible working time, aimed at supporting workers' coping strategies, appear to have a clear beneficial effect on worker health and well-being, with positive consequences also at the company and social level, as evidenced by the higher "feeling to be able to work until 60 years of age".