16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Ticagrelor monotherapy after PCI in patients with concomitant diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease: TWILIGHT DM-CKD

      1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 5 , 2 , 2 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 17 , 21 , 22 , 2 , 9 , 23 , 24 , 10 , 2
      European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy
      Oxford University Press (OUP)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Aims

          We aimed to evaluate the treatment effects of ticagrelor monotherapy in the very high risk cohort of patients with concomitant diabetes mellitus (DM) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

          Methods and results

          In the TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor with Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients after Coronary Intervention) trial, after 3-month dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor and aspirin post-PCI, event-free patients were randomized to either aspirin or placebo in addition to ticagrelor for 12 months. Those with available information on DM and CKD status were included in this subanalysis and were stratified by the presence or absence of either condition: 3391 (54.1%) had neither DM nor CKD (DM−/CKD−), 1822 (29.0%) had DM only (DM+/CKD−), 561 (8.9%) had CKD only (DM−/CKD+), and 8.0% had both DM and CKD (DM+/CKD+). The incidence of the primary endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding did not differ according to DM/CKD status (P-trend = 0.13), but there was a significant increase in BARC 3 or 5 bleeding (P-trend < 0.001) as well as the key secondary endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (P-trend < 0.001). Ticagrelor plus placebo reduced bleeding events compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin across all four groups, including DM+/CKD+ patients with respect to BARC 2–5 [4.5% vs. 8.7%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24–1.01] as well as BARC 3–5 (0.8% vs. 5.3%; HR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03–0.53) bleeding, with no evidence of heterogeneity. The risk of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was similar between treatment arms across all groups.

          Conclusion

          Irrespective of the presence of DM, CKD, and their combination, ticagrelor monotherapy reduced the risk of bleeding without a significant increase in ischaemic events compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate.

          Equations to estimate glomerular filtration rate (GFR) are routinely used to assess kidney function. Current equations have limited precision and systematically underestimate measured GFR at higher values. To develop a new estimating equation for GFR: the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation. Cross-sectional analysis with separate pooled data sets for equation development and validation and a representative sample of the U.S. population for prevalence estimates. Research studies and clinical populations ("studies") with measured GFR and NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey), 1999 to 2006. 8254 participants in 10 studies (equation development data set) and 3896 participants in 16 studies (validation data set). Prevalence estimates were based on 16,032 participants in NHANES. GFR, measured as the clearance of exogenous filtration markers (iothalamate in the development data set; iothalamate and other markers in the validation data set), and linear regression to estimate the logarithm of measured GFR from standardized creatinine levels, sex, race, and age. In the validation data set, the CKD-EPI equation performed better than the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study equation, especially at higher GFR (P < 0.001 for all subsequent comparisons), with less bias (median difference between measured and estimated GFR, 2.5 vs. 5.5 mL/min per 1.73 m(2)), improved precision (interquartile range [IQR] of the differences, 16.6 vs. 18.3 mL/min per 1.73 m(2)), and greater accuracy (percentage of estimated GFR within 30% of measured GFR, 84.1% vs. 80.6%). In NHANES, the median estimated GFR was 94.5 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) (IQR, 79.7 to 108.1) vs. 85.0 (IQR, 72.9 to 98.5) mL/min per 1.73 m(2), and the prevalence of chronic kidney disease was 11.5% (95% CI, 10.6% to 12.4%) versus 13.1% (CI, 12.1% to 14.0%). The sample contained a limited number of elderly people and racial and ethnic minorities with measured GFR. The CKD-EPI creatinine equation is more accurate than the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study equation and could replace it for routine clinical use. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Diabetic Kidney Disease: Challenges, Progress, and Possibilities.

            Diabetic kidney disease develops in approximately 40% of patients who are diabetic and is the leading cause of CKD worldwide. Although ESRD may be the most recognizable consequence of diabetic kidney disease, the majority of patients actually die from cardiovascular diseases and infections before needing kidney replacement therapy. The natural history of diabetic kidney disease includes glomerular hyperfiltration, progressive albuminuria, declining GFR, and ultimately, ESRD. Metabolic changes associated with diabetes lead to glomerular hypertrophy, glomerulosclerosis, and tubulointerstitial inflammation and fibrosis. Despite current therapies, there is large residual risk of diabetic kidney disease onset and progression. Therefore, widespread innovation is urgently needed to improve health outcomes for patients with diabetic kidney disease. Achieving this goal will require characterization of new biomarkers, designing clinical trials that evaluate clinically pertinent end points, and development of therapeutic agents targeting kidney-specific disease mechanisms (e.g., glomerular hyperfiltration, inflammation, and fibrosis). Additionally, greater attention to dissemination and implementation of best practices is needed in both clinical and community settings.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions.

              Although most clinical trials of coronary stents have measured nominally identical safety and effectiveness end points, differences in definitions and timing of assessment have created confusion in interpretation. The Academic Research Consortium is an informal collaboration between academic research organizations in the United States and Europe. Two meetings, in Washington, DC, in January 2006 and in Dublin, Ireland, in June 2006, sponsored by the Academic Research Consortium and including representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and all device manufacturers who were working with the Food and Drug Administration on drug-eluting stent clinical trial programs, were focused on consensus end point definitions for drug-eluting stent evaluations. The effort was pursued with the objective to establish consistency among end point definitions and provide consensus recommendations. On the basis of considerations from historical legacy to key pathophysiological mechanisms and relevance to clinical interpretability, criteria for assessment of death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and stent thrombosis were developed. The broadly based consensus end point definitions in this document may be usefully applied or recognized for regulatory and clinical trial purposes. Although consensus criteria will inevitably include certain arbitrary features, consensus criteria for clinical end points provide consistency across studies that can facilitate the evaluation of safety and effectiveness of these devices.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                2055-6837
                2055-6845
                March 23 2022
                March 23 2022
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Cardiology, Prairie Vascular Research, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
                [2 ]Center for Interventional Cardiovascular Research and Clinical Trials, The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029-6574, USA
                [3 ]Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele–Milan, Italy
                [4 ]Department of Cardiology, the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA
                [5 ]Cardio Center, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano-Milan, Italy
                [6 ]Division of Cardiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
                [7 ]Department of Cardiology, Mediterranea Cardiocentro, Naples, Italy
                [8 ]Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, NY, USA
                [9 ]Department of Cardiology, St. Francis Hospital, Roslyn, NY, USA
                [10 ]Department of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
                [11 ]Institute of Cardiology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland
                [12 ]Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
                [13 ]Center of Postgraduate Medical Education, Central Clinical Hospital of the Ministry of Interior and Administration, Warsaw, Poland
                [14 ]3rd Department of Medicine, Cardiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Wilhelminen Hospital, and Medical Faculty, Sigmund Freud University, Vienna, Austria
                [15 ]Heart Centre, Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre, New Delhi, India
                [16 ]Department of Cardiology, Rabin Medical Center, Petach Tikva, Israel
                [17 ]Duke University Medical Center, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA
                [18 ]Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University and Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
                [19 ]Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada
                [20 ]Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Gill Heart Institute, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
                [21 ]Department of Cardiology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos IDISCC, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain
                [22 ]Department of Cardiology, Policlinico Umberto I University, Roma, Italy
                [23 ]Division of Cardiology, NewYork Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
                [24 ]Department of Cardiology and Pneumology, Helios Amper-Klinikum, Dachau, Germany
                Article
                10.1093/ehjcvp/pvac016
                35325085
                3fa1e2a5-8392-4a70-b450-fb0f1de0dfbb
                © 2022

                https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article