BACKGROUNDExperimental and clinical evidence supports the role of inflammation in atherosclerosis and its complications. Colchicine is an orally administered, potent antiinflammatory medication that is indicated for the treatment of gout and pericarditis. METHODSWe performed a randomized, double-blind trial involving patients recruited within 30 days after a myocardial infarction. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either low-dose colchicine (0.5 mg once daily) or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, resuscitated cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction, stroke, or urgent hospitalization for angina leading to coronary revascularization. The components of the primary end point and safety were also assessed. RESULTSA total of 4745 patients were enrolled; 2366 patients were assigned to the colchicine group, and 2379 to the placebo group. Patients were followed for a median of 22.6 months. The primary end point occurred in 5.5% of the patients in the colchicine group, as compared with 7.1% of those in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61 to 0.96; P = 0.02). The hazard ratios were 0.84 (95% CI, 0.46 to 1.52) for death from cardiovascular causes, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.25 to 2.73) for resuscitated cardiac arrest, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.68 to 1.21) for myocardial infarction, 0.26 (95% CI, 0.10 to 0.70) for stroke, and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.31 to 0.81) for urgent hospitalization for angina leading to coronary revascularization. Diarrhea was reported in 9.7% of the patients in the colchicine group and in 8.9% of those in the placebo group (P = 0.35). Pneumonia was reported as a serious adverse event in 0.9% of the patients in the colchicine group and in 0.4% of those in the placebo group (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONSAmong patients with a recent myocardial infarction, colchicine at a dose of 0.5 mg daily led to a significantly lower risk of ischemic cardiovascular events than placebo. (Funded by the Government of Quebec and others; COLCOT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02551094.

Background: Glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists differ in chemical structure, duration of action and in their effects on clinical outcomes. The cardiovascular effects of once-weekly albiglutide in type 2 diabetes are unknown. Methods: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease to the addition of once-weekly subcutaneous injection of albiglutide (30 mg to 50 mg) or matching placebo to standard care. We hypothesized that albiglutide would be noninferior to placebo for the primary outcome of first occurrence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. If noninferiority was confirmed by an upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio of less than 1.30, closed-testing for superiority was prespecified. Findings: Overall, 9463 participants were followed for a median of 1.6 years. The primary composite outcome occurred in 338 of 4731 patients (7.1%; 4.6 events per 100 person-years) in the albiglutide group and in 428 of 4732 patients (9.0%; 5.9 events per 100 person-years) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI ], 0.68 to 0.90), indicating that albiglutide, was superior to placebo (P<0.0001 for noninferiority, P=0.0006 for superiority). The incidence of acute pancreatitis (albiglutide 10 patients and placebo 7 patients), pancreatic cancer (6 and 5), medullary thyroid carcinoma (0 and 0), and other serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. Interpretation: In patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, albiglutide was superior to placebo with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; Harmony Outcomes ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02465515.) noninferiority; P = 0.06 for superiority). There seems to be variation in the results of existing trials with GLP-1 receptor agonists, which if correct, might reflect drug structure or duration of action, patients studied, duration of follow-up or other factors.

Since the inception of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society heart failure (HF) guidelines in 2006, much has changed in the care for patients with HF. Over the past decade, the HF Guidelines Committee has published regular updates. However, because of the major changes that have occurred, the Guidelines Committee believes that a comprehensive reassessment of the HF management recommendations is presently needed, with a view to producing a full and complete set of updated guidelines. The primary and secondary Canadian Cardiovascular Society HF panel members as well as external experts have reviewed clinically relevant literature to provide guidance for the practicing clinician. The 2017 HF guidelines provide updated guidance on the diagnosis and management (self-care, pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, device, and referral) that should aid in day-to-day decisions for caring for patients with HF. Among specific issues covered are risk scores, the differences in management for HF with preserved vs reduced ejection fraction, exercise and rehabilitation, implantable devices, revascularization, right ventricular dysfunction, anemia, and iron deficiency, cardiorenal syndrome, sleep apnea, cardiomyopathies, HF in pregnancy, cardio-oncology, and myocarditis. We devoted attention to strategies and treatments to prevent HF, to the organization of HF care, comorbidity management, as well as practical issues around the timing of referral and follow-up care. Recognition and treatment of advanced HF is another important aspect of this update, including how to select advanced therapies as well as end of life considerations. Finally, we acknowledge the remaining gaps in evidence that need to be filled by future research.

ESPITE HIGHLY EFFECTIVEcontemporary treatment regimens, the majority of vascular events are not prevented, particularly in high-risk individuals. 1,2 Therefore, further strategies to decrease atherosclerosis burden and improve cardiovascular outcomes are needed. There is a strong inverse association between high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and risk of coronary heart disease in epidemiological studies. 3,4 Efforts to increase HDL cholesterol levels have included administration of oral compounds that interfere with lipid metabolic pathways and result in sustained increase in HDL levels over time or short-term infusion of reconstituted HDL to take advantage of its potent biological properties. 5 A provocative clinical study has suggested that short-term infusions of HDL containing a naturally occurring variant of apolipoprotein A-I (Milano) can induce regression of coronary atherosclerosis. 6 However, interpretation of Author Affiliations are listed at the end of this article. Investigators of the Effect of rHDL on Atherosclerosis-Safety and Efficacy (ERASE) Trial are listed at the end of this article.

BACKGROUNDThe cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor evacetrapib substantially raises the high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level, reduces the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level, and enhances cellular cholesterol efflux capacity. We sought to determine the effect of evacetrapib on major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with high-risk vascular disease. METHODSIn a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, we enrolled 12,092 patients who had at least one of the following conditions: an acute coronary syndrome within the previous 30 to 365 days, cerebrovascular atherosclerotic disease, peripheral vascular arterial disease, or diabetes mellitus with coronary artery disease. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either evacetrapib at a dose of 130 mg or matching placebo, administered daily, in addition to standard medical therapy. The primary efficacy end point was the first occurrence of any component of the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina. RESULTSAt 3 months, a 31.1% decrease in the mean LDL cholesterol level was observed with evacetrapib versus a 6.0% increase with placebo, and a 133.2% increase in the mean HDL cholesterol level was seen with evacetrapib versus a 1.6% increase with placebo. After 1363 of the planned 1670 primary end-point events had occurred, the data and safety monitoring board recommended that the trial be terminated early because of a lack of efficacy. After a median of 26 months of evacetrapib or placebo, a primary end-point event occurred in 12.9% of the patients in the evacetrapib group and in 12.8% of those in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.91 to 1.11; P = 0.91). CONCLUSIONSAlthough the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor evacetrapib had favorable effects on established lipid biomarkers, treatment with evacetrapib did not result in a lower rate of cardiovascular events than placebo among patients with high-risk vascular disease. (Funded by Eli Lilly; ACCELERATE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01687998.)

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.

No abstract

No abstract