Does High-Intensity Pitavastatin Therapy Further Improve Clinical Outcomes?

Similar documents
REAL-CAD. : Cardiovascular benefit of pitavastatin in stable coronary artery disease

Curriculum Vitae Name : Prof. DR. Dr. Idrus Alwi SpPD, K-KV, FACC, FESC, FAPSIC, FINASIM, FACP. Current Position : Professor of Internal Medicine,

The JUPITER trial: What does it tell us? Alice Y.Y. Cheng, MD, FRCPC January 24, 2009

ZEUS Trial ezetimibe Ultrasound Study

Felix Vallotton Ball (1899) LDL-C management in Asian diabetes: moderate vs. high intensity statin --- a lesson from EMPATHY study

JUPITER NEJM Poll. Panel Discussion: Literature that Should Have an Impact on our Practice: The JUPITER Study

ATP IV: Predicting Guideline Updates

Effect of the PCSK9 Inhibitor Evolocumab on Cardiovascular Outcomes

Dyslipidemia in the light of Current Guidelines - Do we change our Practice?

ESC Geoffrey Rose Lecture on Population Sciences Cholesterol and risk: past, present and future

Weigh the benefit of statin treatment: LDL & Beyond

Protecting the heart and kidney: implications from the SHARP trial

MS Sabatine, RP Giugliano, AC Keech, PS Sever, SA Murphy and TR Pedersen, for the FOURIER Steering Committee & Investigators

Should we prescribe aspirin and statins to all subjects over 65? (Or even all over 55?) Terje R.Pedersen Oslo University Hospital Oslo, Norway

Conflict of Interest Disclosure. Learning Objectives. Learning Objectives. Guidelines. Update on Lifestyle Guidelines

Workshop. Todd Anderson MD / Jacques Genest MD

Canakinumab Anti-Inflammatory Thrombosis Outcomes Study (CANTOS)

Treatment of Cardiovascular Risk Factors. Kevin M Hayes D.O. F.A.C.C. First Coast Heart and Vascular Center

AIM HIGH for SATURN and stay SHARP; COURAGE (v1.5)

Should I use statins?

John J.P. Kastelein MD PhD Professor of Medicine Dept. of Vascular Medicine Academic Medial Center / University of Amsterdam

Is Lower Better for LDL or is there a Sweet Spot

LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular outcomes?

The ACCELERATE Trial

Study 2 ( ) Pivotal Phase 3 Study Top-Line Results. October 29, 2018

Review of guidelines for management of dyslipidemia in diabetic patients

Contemporary management of Dyslipidemia

Introduction. Objective. Critical Questions Addressed

Lipid Management: The Next Level How Will the New ACC/AHA Guidelines Change My Practice

Case Presentation. Rafael Bitzur The Bert W Strassburger Lipid Center Sheba Medical Center Tel Hashomer

Hyperlipidemia: Lowering the Bar on the Lipid Limbo. Community Faculty Development Symposium March 13, 2004 Hugh Huizenga MD, MPH

Lessons from Recent Atherosclerosis Trials

In-Ho Chae. Seoul National University College of Medicine

CVD risk assessment using risk scores in primary and secondary prevention

Disclosures No relationships (not even to an employer) No off-label uses. Cholesterol Lowering Guidelines: What now?

4/7/ The stats on heart disease. + Deaths & Age-Adjusted Death Rates for

Placebo-Controlled Statin Trials Prevention Of CVD in Women"

STABILITY Stabilization of Atherosclerotic plaque By Initiation of darapladib TherapY. Harvey D White on behalf of The STABILITY Investigators

Disclosures. Diabetes and Cardiovascular Risk Management. Learning Objectives. Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease

Pitavastatin 4 mg vs. Pravastatin 40 mg in HIV Dyslipidemia: Post- Hoc Analysis of the INTREPID Trial Based on the Independent CHD Risk Factor for Age

Update on Dyslipidemia and Recent Data on Treating the Statin Intolerant Patient

Placebo-Controlled Statin Trials MANAGEMENT OF HIGH BLOOD CHOLESTEROL MANAGEMENT OF HIGH BLOOD CHOLESTEROL: IMPLICATIONS OF THE NEW GUIDELINES

Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Jichi Medical University Saitama Medical Center, Japan

PREVENTION OF CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE IN WOMEN

Advanced Treatment of LDL: How Low Should You Go?

Advanced Treatment of LDL: How Low Should You Go?

How would you manage Ms. Gold

Effective Treatment Options With Add-on or Combination Therapy. Christie Ballantyne (USA)

Lipid Panel Management Refresher Course for the Family Physician

Nicole Ciffone, MS, ANP-C, AACC Clinical Lipid Specialist

New ACC/AHA Guidelines on Lipids: Are PCSK9 Inhibitors Poised for a Breakthrough?

Managing Dyslipidemia in Disclosures. Learning Objectives 03/05/2018. Speaker Disclosures

No relevant financial relationships

Lipid Studies That Rocked My World Gabor Gyenes Medicine Grand Rounds May 27, 2011

Placebo-Controlled Statin Trials EXPLAINING THE DECREASE IN DEATHS FROM CHD! PREVENTION OF CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE IN WOMEN EXPLAINING THE DECREASE IN

2016 ESC/EAS Guideline in Dyslipidemias: Impact on Treatment& Clinical Practice

2013 Cholesterol Guidelines. Anna Broz MSN, RN, CNP, AACC Adult Certified Nurse Practitioner North Ohio Heart, Inc.

9/29/2015. Primary Prevention of Heart Disease: Objectives. Objectives. What works? What doesn t?

Disclosures. Objectives. Cardiovascular Risk. Patient Case. JUPITER: The final frontier in statin utilization or an idea from outer space?

Study 1 ( ) Pivotal Phase 3 Long-Term Safety Study Top-Line Results

Controversies in Cardiac Pharmacology

Landmark Clinical Trials.

Learning Objectives. Patient Case

Methods. 316 Miyauchi, ET AL

What have We Learned in Dyslipidemia Management Since the Publication of the 2013 ACC/AHA Guideline?

When Statins Aren t Enough: Appropriate Therapies for High-Risk Patients with Diabetes

Antiplatelet Therapy in Primary CVD Prevention and Stable Coronary Artery Disease. Καρακώστας Γεώργιος Διευθυντής Καρδιολογικής Κλινικής, Γ.Ν.

2/10/2016. Perspectives on the 2013 ACC/AHA Cholesterol Guidelines. Disclosures. ATP-III Update 2004

LDL and the Benefits of Statin Therapy

CLINICAL OUTCOME Vs SURROGATE MARKER

Inflammation and and Heart Heart Disease in Women Inflammation and Heart Disease

Lipid Management 2013 Statin Benefit Groups

Statins for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Women: Review of the Evidence

Rikshospitalet, University of Oslo

Tailored Statin Treatment for Type 2 Diabetes. Han, Ki Hoon Asan Medical Center University of Ulsan

Statin therapy in patients with Mild to Moderate Coronary Stenosis by 64-slice Multidetector Coronary Computed Tomography

Cholesterol Management Roy Gandolfi, MD

Best Medical Therapy for asymptomatic carotid disease

Antihypertensive Trial Design ALLHAT

Clinical and Economic Value of Rivaroxaban in Coronary Artery Disease

Methods. Background and Objectives STRADIVARIUS

Disclosure. No relevant financial relationships. Placebo-Controlled Statin Trials

The TNT Trial Is It Time to Shift Our Goals in Clinical

LDL Cholesterol Lowering with Evolocumab and Outcomes in Patients with Peripheral Artery Disease: Insights from the FOURIER Trial

LAMIS (Livalo in AMI Study)

Three-Year Clinical Outcomes with Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds: Results from the Randomized ABSORB III Trial Stephen G.

Ischemic Heart Disease: The 5 Most Important Trials in the Last Year

2013 ACC/AHA Cholesterol Guidelines JULIE HAMMOND, D.O. PGY-2 MATTHEW PAOLI, D.O. PGY-2

How to Handle Statin Intolerance in the High Risk Patient

JAMA. 2011;305(24): Nora A. Kalagi, MSc

Janet B. Long, MSN, ACNP, CLS, FAHA, FNLA Rhode Island Cardiology Center

4 th and Goal To Go How Low Should We Go? :

What oral antiplatelet therapy would you choose? a) ASA alone b) ASA + Clopidogrel c) ASA + Prasugrel d) ASA + Ticagrelor

Alirocumab Treatment Effect Did Not Differ Between Patients With and Without Low HDL-C or High Triglyceride Levels in Phase 3 trials

Drug Class Monograph

Making War on Cholesterol with New Weapons: How Low Can We/Should We Go? Shaun Goodman

New evidences in heart failure: the GISSI-HF trial. Aldo P Maggioni, MD ANMCO Research Center Firenze, Italy

Preventing Cardiovascular Disease With Lipid Management: Matching Therapy to Risk

New Guidelines in Dyslipidemia Management

Long-Term Complications of Diabetes Mellitus Macrovascular Complication

Transcription:

Late Breaking Clinical Trial Session at AHA 2017 Does High-Intensity Pitavastatin Therapy Further Improve Clinical Outcomes? The REAL-CAD Study in 13,054 Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease Takeshi Kimura, Teruo Inoue, Isao Taguchi, Hiroshi Iwata, Satoshi Iimuro, Takafumi Hiro, Yoshihisa Nakagawa, Yukio Ozaki, Yasuo Ohashi, Hiroyuki Daida, Hiroaki Shimokawa, Masunori Matsuzaki, Ryozo Nagai, on behalf of the REAL-CAD Study Investigators Disclosure: Public Health Research Foundation, and Kowa Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.

Backgrounds Recommendations for Lipid-lowering Therapy in Patients with Established CAD ACC/AHA guideline: High-intensity statin therapy atorvastatin 40/80 mg, rosuvastatin 20/40 mg, or simvastatin 80 mg Previous More versus Less Statins Trials More vs less statin PROVE IT TNT IDEAL SEARCH A to Z Subtotal (5 trials) LDL-C Reduction (mmol/l) 0.65 0.62 0.55 0.39 0.30 0.51 Events (% per annum) Statin/more Control/less 406 (11.3%) 889 (4.0%) 938 (5.2%) 1,347 (3.6%) 257 (7.2%) 3,837/19,829 (4.5%) 458 (13.1%) 1,164 (5.4%) 1,106 (6.3%) 1,406 (3.8%) 282 (8.1%) 4,416/19,783 (5.3%) Unweighted RR (CI) Trend: χ 2 1=12.4 (p=0.0004) 0.85 (0.82-0.89) p<0.0001 Cholesterol Treatment Trialists (CTT) Collaboration. Lancet 2010; 376: 1670-81.

Backgrounds and Objectives However, the high-intensity statins are not widely used in daily clinical practice, particularly in Asia. Most of the doses of high-intensity statin therapy defined in the ACC/AHA guideline are not approved in Japan. Furthermore, maximum approved doses of statins are prescribed only very infrequently in Japan even for secondary prevention. Therefore, we sought to determine whether higher-dose statin therapy within the locally approved dose range would be beneficial in Japanese patients in the largest-ever trial comparing the efficacy of high-dose versus low-dose statin therapy in patients with established stable CAD.

REAL-CAD ( Randomized Evaluation of Aggressive or Moderate Lipid Lowering Therapy with Pitavastatin in Coronary Artery Disease ) A prospective, multi-center, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint, physician-initiated trial to determine whether high-dose as compared with low-dose pitavastatin therapy within the approved dose range could reduce CV events in Japanese patients with stable CAD. Eligibility: Consent for enrollment Men and women, 20-80 years of age Stable CAD: ACS or PCI/CABG >3 months Clinical diagnosis of CAD with coronary stenosis 50 % diameter stenosis LDL-C <120 mg/dl on pitavastatin 1 mg/day during the run-in period Pitavastatin 1 mg/day Randomization Pitavastatin 1 mg/day Pitavastatin 4 mg/day Jan. 2010 LDL-C <120 mg/dl ~ Mar. 2013 Jan. ~ Mar. 2016 Run-in Period (>1 month) Follow-up (36-60 months) Pitavastatin 1 mg and 4 mg have LDL-C lowering effect comparable to atorvastatin 5 mg and 20 mg, respectively. The company manufacturing pitavastatin (Kowa Pharmaceutical) provided financial support, but was not involved in the study conduct.

Study Design Primary Endpoint a composite of CV death, non-fatal MI, non-fatal ischemic stroke, or unstable angina requiring emergency hospitalization Sample size calculation Hypothesis: 16% relative risk reduction with the high-dose pitavastatin Tx Assumptions: Annual primary endpoint event rate of 2.5%, Drop-out rate of 10% Sample size: 12,600 patients were to be enrolled with anticipated 1,033 events during the planned 3 years of enrollment and at least 3 years of follow-up. Power: 80%, Alpha: 0.05 However, the actual event rate was lower than anticipated. On October 27, 2015, the steering committee decided not to extend the study further despite the original event-driven trial design, because substantial number of centers were reluctant to extend the study further.

Jan. 2010 Mar. 2013 733 Japanese centers Study Patient Flow Enrolled N=14,774 Run-in period Randomized N=13,054 Excluded N=1,720 Withdrawal/Missing consent N=790 Other reasons N=930 Pitavastatin 1 mg N=6,528 Pitavastatin 4 mg N=6,526 Withdrawal/Missing consent N=100 Received at least Withdrawal/Missing consent N=136 1 dose of pitavastatin Safety analysis set (SAS) N=6,428 Safety analysis set (SAS) N=6,390 Not meeting the eligibility N=214 ACS within 3 months N=35 LDL-C <100 mg/dl without statins N=76 LDL-C 120 mg/dl at randomization N=105 Full analysis set (FAS) N=6,214 Follow-up period [median]: 3.9 (0.0-5.9) years 1 year FU completed: 96.9% Final FU completed beyond Jan. 2016: 83.2% Not meeting the eligibility N=191 ACS within 3 months N=16 LDL-C <100 mg/dl without statins N=76 LDL-C 120 mg/dl at randomization N=101 Full analysis set (FAS) N=6,199 Follow-up period [median]: 3.9 (0.0-5.8) years 1 year FU completed: 97.0% Final FU completed beyond Jan. 2016: 83.4%

Baseline Characteristics and Medications Variables Pitavastatin 1 mg (N=6,214) Pitavastatin 4 mg (N=6,199) Age years 68.1±8.3 68.0±8.3 Male sex 83% 83% BMI kg/m 2 24.6±3.4 24.6±3.3 Hypertension 75% 76% Diabetes mellitus 40% 40% Current smoking 16% 17% History of ACS 72% 72% ACS within 1 year before randomization 24% 24% Coronary revascularization 91% 90% Revascularization within 1 year before randomization 28% 28% Ischemic stroke 7% 7% Peripheral vascular disease 7% 7% CKD (egfr <60 ml/min/1.73m 2 ) 36% 35% Aspirin 93% 92% DAPT 45% 44% Statins before enrollment 91% 91%

TG (mg/dl) hs-crp (mg/l) LDL-C (mg/dl) HDL-C (mg/dl) Serial Changes in Lipid Parameters and hs-crp LDL-C 100 Pitavastatin 1mg 55 Pitavastatin 4mg 95 89.4 91.1 91.1 91.0 54 90 88.1 53 85 87.7 52 80 76.6 75 51 75.5 76.6 73.7 70 Main effect p< 0.001 50 Interaction p< 0.001 0 0 Baseline 0.5 1 2 3 No. of Patients 1mg 6,214 6,031 4mg 6,199 5,890 5,615 5,518 Years 5,252 5,203 4,509 4,405 No. of Patients 1mg 4mg 50.7 50.7 6,212 6,198 51.0 50.6 6,028 5,890 52.2 51.6 5,596 5,482 HDL-C Years 52.3 51.7 51.6 Main effect p< 0.001 Interaction p= 0.17 5,238 5,174 52.3 Baseline 0.5 1 2 3 4,498 4,388 130 125 120 127.1 125.4 125.5 No. of Patients 1mg 6,208 6,032 4mg 6,195 5,896 122.3 5,606 5,498 TG Years 122.4 5,245 5,183 121.5 4,507 4,402 1mg 4mg hs-crp 115 117.5 0.50 114.5 115.0 114.5 0.49 110 Main effect p< 0.001 0.45 Interaction p= 0.77 Main effect p< 0.001 0 0 Baseline 0.5 1 2 3 Baseline 6 0.65 0.60 0.55 No. of Patients 0.59 0.57 6,032 5,994 Months 0.59 5,734 5,585

Cumulative incidence(%) Primary Endpoint 10 8 6 4 2 0 No. at risk 1mg 4mg 6,214 6,199 (CV death/mi/ischemic stroke/ua) HR 0.81 (95% CI, 0.69-0.95), Cox P=0.01 No. of patients with event: 4mg 266 (4.3%), 1mg 334 (5.4%) NNT for 5 years=63 Pitavastatin 1 mg Pitavastatin 4 mg 1.4 1.2 2.9 2.3 log-rank P=0.01 0 1 2 Years 3 4 5 5,743 5,631 5,321 5,256 4,501 4,427 2,760 2,730 4.2 3.5 5.6 4.6 593 616

Cumulative incidence(%) Secondary Composite Endpoint Primary Endpoint plus Coronary Revascularization* 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 HR 0.83 (95% CI, 0.73-0.93), Cox P=0.002 No. of patients with event: 4mg 489 (7.9%), 1mg 600 (9.7%) NNT for 5 years=41 Pitavastatin 1 mg Pitavastatin 4 mg 2.8 2.5 log-rank P=0.002 8.0 10.4 5.8 8.5 6.7 4.7 : Excluding TLR for lesions treated at prior PCI * No. at risk 0 1 2 Years 3 4 5 1mg 4mg 6,214 6,199 5,660 5,556 5,166 5,131 4,327 4,277 2,627 2,617 561 588

Other Secondary Endpoints No. of patients with event (%) Outcomes 1 mg (n=6,214) 4 mg (n=6,199) HR(95% CI) P Value Death from any cause 260 (4.2) 207 (3.3) 0.81 (0.68-0.98) 0.03 CV death 112 (1.8) 86 (1.4) 0.78 (0.59-1.04) 0.09 MI 72 (1.2) 40 (0.6) 0.57 (0.38-0.83) 0.004 Ischemic stroke 83 (1.3) 84 (1.4) 1.03 (0.76-1.40) 0.84 Hemorrhagic stroke 30 (0.5) 43 (0.7) 1.46 (0.92-2.33) 0.11 Unstable angina requiring emergency hospitalization 90 (1.4) 76 (1.2) 0.86 (0.63-1.17) 0.34 Coronary revascularization (Any) 626 (10.1) 529 (8.5) 0.86 (0.76-0.96) 0.008 Coronary revascularization (non-tlr) 356 (5.7) 277 (4.5) 0.79 (0.68-0.92) 0.003 Coronary revascularization (TLR) 319 (5.1) 276 (4.5) 0.88 (0.75-1.03) 0.12 1 4 mg Better 1 mg Better

Subgroup Analyses Primary Endpoint (CV death/ MI/ Ischemic stroke/ UA) Subgroup Overall Age Sex Diabetes LDL-C hs-crp HDL-C TG BMI < 65 65 Male Female Yes No < 95 mg/dl 95 mg/dl < 1 mg/l 1 mg/l 40 mg/dl > 40 mg/dl < 150 mg/dl 150 mg/dl < 25 25 No. of patients 12,413 4,009 8,404 10,253 2,160 4,978 7,435 7,865 4,548 8,510 3,516 2,607 9,803 8,045 4,358 6,693 4,788 Event rate (%) 1 mg 4 mg HR (95% CI) 5.4 5.0 5.6 5.7 3.8 6.5 4.6 5.0 5.9 4.9 6.7 6.5 5.1 5.1 5.9 5.3 5.7 4.3 3.3 4.8 4.6 3.0 4.8 4.0 4.0 4.8 3.6 6.0 5.0 4.1 4.3 4.2 4.5 4.4 4 mg Better 1 1 mg Better 0.81 (0.69-0.95) 0.67 (0.49-0.91) 0.87 (0.72-1.05) 0.81 (0.68-0.96) 0.81 (0.51-1.28) 0.75 (0.59-0.95) 0.86 (0.69-1.08) 0.81 (0.66-1.00) 0.81 (0.63-1.05) 0.75 (0.61-0.92) 0.89 (0.68-1.16) 0.78 (0.56-1.08) 0.82 (0.68-0.99) 0.86 (0.70-1.06) 0.73 (0.56-0.96) 0.87 (0.70-1.07) 0.78 (0.60-1.00) P value for interaction 0.16 0.99 0.39 0.97 0.32 0.78 0.34 0.53

Safety Outcomes Event Pitavastatin 1 mg (N=6,428) Pitavastatin 4 mg (N=6,390) P value Adverse events N (%) Rhabdomyolysis 1 (0.0) 2 (0.0) 0.62 Muscle-complaints 45 (0.7) 121 (1.9) <0.001 New onset of diabetes mellitus 279 (4.3) 285 (4.5) 0.76 Laboratory test abnormalities N (%) Elevation of ALT, AST, or both 3ULN 174 (2.7) 187(2.9) 0.46 Elevation of CK 5ULN 40 (0.6) 42 (0.7) 0.83 Study drug discontinuation N (%) 503 (8.1) 610 (9.8) <0.001

Study Limitations 1. The present study was conducted as an open-label trial with its inherent limitations. However, considering the limitations of the open-label trial design, the primary endpoint was defined as not including coronary revascularization procedures, and adjudicated in a blinded fashion. 2. The present study was prematurely terminated despite the original eventdriven trial design, although we observed significant risk reduction for the primary endpoint. 3. Final follow-up was not completed in a substantial proportion of patients, reflecting a limitation of physician-initiated study relying upon voluntary efforts of the site investigators.

Conclusions and Implications High-dose (4 mg/day) as compared with low-dose (1 mg/day) pitavastatin therapy significantly reduced CV events in Japanese patients with stable CAD. The present study suggests that the administration of maximum tolerable doses of statins within the range of local approval would be the preferred statins therapy in Japanese patients with established CAD regardless of the baseline LDL-C levels.