Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The Zoster Eye Disease Study (ZEDS) is the first randomized clinical trial to study the efficacy of long-term (1 year) suppressive valacyclovir treatment on herpes zoster ophthalmicus (HZO) outcomes. This article details the baseline characteristics of participants. SETTING/METHODS:The study was set at 95 participating clinical centers in 33 states, Canada, and New Zealand. STUDY POPULATION/METHODS:Immunocompetent adults with a history of a characteristic HZO unilateral rash and documentation of an episode of active dendriform epithelial keratitis, stromal keratitis, endothelial keratitis, or iritis within the preceding year, enrolled in ZEDS from November 2017 to January 2023. INTERVENTION/METHODS:Participants were randomized to double-masked oral valacyclovir 1 gm daily versus placebo for 1 year of treatment and followed for 18 months. RESULTS:Five hundred twenty-seven participants were enrolled across 4 strata according to age at HZO onset (younger or older than 60 years) and duration of HZO at enrollment (less or greater than 6 months), with an even distribution of men and women and a median age of 60 years. More participants with recent (57%, 300/527) than chronic HZO and younger than 60 years at HZO onset (54%, 286/527) were enrolled. Most participants were treated acutely with a recommended antiviral regimen (91%, 480/527) and had not been vaccinated against zoster (79%, 418/527). CONCLUSIONS:The broad ZEDS study population enhances the likelihood that ZEDS will provide generalizable high-quality evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of suppressive valacyclovir for HZO immunocompetent adults and whether it should become standard of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03134196.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:The relationship between the extent and severity of stress-induced ischemia and the extent and severity of anatomic coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with obstructive CAD is multifactorial and includes the intensity of stress achieved, type of testing used, presence and extent of prior infarction, collateral blood flow, plaque characteristics, microvascular disease, coronary vasomotor tone, and genetic factors. Among chronic coronary disease participants with site-determined moderate or severe ischemia, we investigated associations between ischemia severity on stress testing and the extent of CAD on coronary computed tomography angiography. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Clinically indicated stress testing included nuclear imaging, echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, or nonimaging exercise tolerance test. Among those with preserved renal function who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography, we examined relationships between ischemia and CAD by coronary computed tomography angiography, overall, and by stress test modality, regardless of subsequent randomization. Core laboratories categorized ischemia as severe, moderate, mild, or none, while the extent and severity of anatomic CAD were categorized based on the modified Duke prognostic index. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Among 3601 participants with interpretable stress tests and coronary computed tomography angiography, ischemia severity was weakly associated with CAD extent/severity (r=0.27), with modest variability in strength of association by modality: nuclear (n=1532; r=0.40), echocardiography (n=827; r=0.15), cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (n=108; r=0.31), and exercise tolerance test (n=1134; r=0.18). The extent of infarction on nuclear imaging and echocardiography was weakly associated with CAD extent/severity. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Overall, ischemia severity on stress testing showed weak to moderate associations with the anatomic extent of CAD in this cohort with moderate or severe ischemia on local interpretation and controlled symptoms. REGISTRATION/UNASSIGNED:URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

AbstractIn response to the Covid-19 pandemic, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute launched five multisite clinical trials testing candidate host tissue-directed medical interventions to hasten recovery, improve function, and reduce morbidity and mortality. Speed, flexibility, and collaboration were essential. This article from the Steering and Executive committees describes the Collaborating Network of Networks for Evaluating Covid-19 and Therapeutic Strategies (CONNECTS) research program that enrolled 6690 participants and evaluated 18 intervention strategies using 10 molecular agents across the care continuum (outpatient, inpatient, and post discharge), and reports lessons learned from this initiative. Successes include rapid trial execution through collaboration and adaptive platform designs. Challenges that impeded efficiency included time required to execute subcontracts, constraints on clinical research workforce, and limited research infrastructure in nonacademic settings.

BACKGROUND:Whether revascularisation (REV) improves outcomes in patients with three-vessel coronary artery disease (3V-CAD) is uncertain. AIMS/OBJECTIVE:Our objective was to evaluate outcomes with REV (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] or coronary artery bypass graft surgery [CABG]) versus medical therapy in patients with 3V-CAD. METHODS:ISCHEMIA participants with 3V-CAD on coronary computed tomography angiography without prior CABG were included. Outcomes following initial invasive management (INV) with REV (PCI or CABG) versus initial conservative management (CON) with medical therapy alone were evaluated. Regression modelling was used to estimate the outcomes if all participants were to undergo prompt REV versus those assigned to CON. Outcomes were cardiovascular (CV) death/myocardial infarction (MI), death, CV death, and quality of life. Bayesian posterior probability for benefit (Pr [benefit]) for 1 percentage point lower 4-year rates with REV versus CON were evaluated. RESULTS:Among 1,236 participants with 3V-CAD (612 INV/624 CON), REV was associated with lower 4-year CV death/MI (adjusted 4-year difference: -4.4, 95% credible interval [CrI] -8.7 to -0.3 percentage points, Pr [benefit]=94.8%) when compared with CON, with similar results for PCI versus CON (-5.8, 95% CrI: -10.8 to -0.5 percentage points, Pr [benefit]=96.4%) and CABG versus CON (-3.7, 95% CrI: -8.8 to 1.5 percentage points, Pr [benefit]=84.7%). Adjusted 4-year REV versus CON differences were as follows: death -1.2 (95% CrI: -4.7 to 2.2) percentage points, CV death -2.3 (95% CrI: -5.5 to 0.8) percentage points, with similar results for PCI and for CABG. The Pr (benefit) for death with REV (PCI or CABG) versus CON was 49-63%. The adjusted 12-month Seattle Angina Questionnaire-7 summary score differences favoured REV: REV versus CON 4.6 (95% CrI: 2.7-6.4) percentage points; PCI versus CON 3.6 (95% CrI: 1.2-5.8) percentage points and CABG versus CON 4.3 (95% CrI: 1.5-6.9) percentage points with high Pr (benefit). CONCLUSIONS:In participants with 3V-CAD, REV (either PCI or CABG) was associated with a lower 4-year CV death/MI rate and improved quality of life, with similar results for PCI versus CON and CABG versus CON. The differences in all-cause mortality between REV and CON were small with wide confidence intervals. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01471522).

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Pursuing initial invasive or conservative management of chronic coronary disease (CCD) is a preference-sensitive decision that should include shared decision-making. Communicating the benefits of either approach is challenging, as individual patients rarely achieve the population-averaged outcomes reported in clinical trials. Our objective was to develop a patient decision aid (PDA) with patient-specific estimates of outcomes for initial invasive versus conservative management of CCD, based on the ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches). METHODS/UNASSIGNED:This was a multiphase mixed-methods study using focus groups of outpatients with CCD, caregivers, clinicians, and researchers. Focus groups were held in Kansas City, MO and New York City, NY between September 2021 and June 2022. Patients with CCD were included if they had a positive stress test within 1 year. Phase 1 focused on patient priorities for outcomes to guide treatment decisions. Phase 2 involved PDA development and refinement. Phase 3 involved further refinement and member checking. Key themes involving shared decision-making and treatment preferences were elicited from focus groups using a deductive approach to develop a PDA representing the outcomes most important to patients. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Of 46 patient and caregiver participants, the mean age was 63.5 years, 53% were female, 61% were White, 24% were Black, and 9% were Hispanic. When deciding between treatments, participants valued shared decision-making but generally deferred decisions to clinicians. The outcomes most important to participants were survival and quality of life, followed by physical functioning and symptoms. To represent these outcomes, participants favored simple visualizations, such as a speedometer or health meter. When deciding between treatment options, participants preferred to use the PDA collaboratively with a clinician instead of as a stand-alone tool. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Our novel, patient-centered approach to developing a PDA for CCD with patient-specific outcomes has the potential to rapidly translate clinical trial results to individual patients and support shared decision-making.

BACKGROUND:Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have been proposed as a potential treatment for adults hospitalised with COVID-19, due to their potential anti-inflammatory and endothelial protective effects. Published evidence from randomised control trials (RCTs) does not provide evidence of benefit. We aimed to estimate the effect of oral administration of SGLT2 inhibitors compared with usual care or placebo in adults hospitalised with COVID-19. METHODS:Eligible RCTs that estimated the effect of oral administration of SGLT2 inhibitors compared with usual care or placebo on 28-day all-cause mortality (primary outcome) were included in this prospective meta-analysis. The primary safety outcome was ketoacidosis by 28 days. Trials were identified through systematic searches of ClinicalTrials.gov, EudraCT, and the WHO ISRCTN registry between Nov 1, 2022 and Jan 31, 2023. The search terms were "random*" AND "COVID" AND each SGLT2i, not restricted by trial status or language. Individual searches were then combined. Prespecified summary outcome data, overall and within subgroups of interest, were provided by each trial. The primary analyses were inverse variance weighted meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023406442. FINDINGS/RESULTS:for inconsistency across trials 0%). The risk of bias was assessed as being low. Ketoacidosis was observed in seven participants in the SGLT2 inhibitor group and two patients in the usual care or placebo group. INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS:Although administration of SGLT2 inhibitor was safe, we found no clear evidence that adding SGLT2 inhibitor therapy improved outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 compared with usual care or placebo. These data do not support the use of SGLT2 inhibitors as standard treatment in adults hospitalised for COVID-19. FUNDING/BACKGROUND:None.

BACKGROUND:Patients hospitalised for COVID-19 are at risk for multiorgan failure and death. Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors provide cardiovascular and kidney protection in patients with cardiometabolic conditions and could provide organ protection during COVID-19. We aimed to investigate whether SGLT2 inhibitors can reduce the need for organ support in patients hospitalised for COVID-19. METHODS:This pragmatic, multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, platform trial was conducted across 63 sites in the USA, Spain, Brazil, Italy, and Mexico. Patients aged at least 18 years hospitalised for COVID-19 (moderate or severe illness) were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive voice system or web-response system, to receive locally available SGLT2 inhibitor (administered orally, once daily) plus standard-of-care or standard-of-care for 30 days. The primary outcome was organ support-free days evaluated through 21 days, assessed using intention-to-treat approach. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04505774. FINDINGS/RESULTS:The first patient was randomly assigned to the SGLT2 inhibitor domain on Dec 3, 2021. On March 31, 2023, at the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring board, enrolment in the SGLT2 inhibitor domain for both moderately and severely ill hospitalised patients was stopped prematurely for futility due to a low likelihood of finding a treatment benefit. The final randomised population consisted of 575 patients (mean age 72 years [SD 13], 242 (42%) female and 154 (27%) Hispanic; 504 in the moderate illness group and 71 in the severe illness group). 573 patients had a known 21-day outcome; 215 (75%) of 285 patients in the SGLT2 inhibitor plus standard-of-care group did not require respiratory or cardiovascular organ support versus 231 (80%) of 288 patients in the standard-of-care group. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for an SGLT2 inhibitor effect on organ support-free days was 0·74 (95% Credible Interval [CrI] 0·48-1·13; where OR higher than 1 indicated treatment benefit, yielding a posterior probability of futility P(OR <1·2) of 99% and a posterior probability of inferiority P(OR<1·0) of 91%). There were 37 deaths (13%) in the SGLT2 inhibitor plus standard-of-care group and 42 deaths (15%) in the standard-of-care group at 90 days (hazard ratio 0·91 [95% CrI 0·58-1·43], probability of hazard ratio <1 of 66%). No safety concerns were observed with SGLT2 inhibitors, including no cases of ketoacidosis. INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS:SGLT2 inhibitors did not significantly increase days free of organ support or reduce mortality in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. SGLT2 inhibitors were well tolerated with no observed safety concerns. Overall, these findings do not support the use of SGLT2 inhibitors as standard care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. FUNDING/BACKGROUND:National Institutes of Health.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:The ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) demonstrated greater health status benefits with an initial invasive strategy, as compared with a conservative one, for patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia. Whether these benefits vary globally is important to understand to support global adoption of the results. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We analyzed participants' disease-specific health status using the validated 7-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ: >5-point differences are clinically important) at baseline and over 1-year follow-up across 37 countries in 6 international regions. The average effect of initial invasive versus conservative strategies on 1-year SAQ scores was estimated using Bayesian proportional odds regression and compared across regions. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Considerable regional variation in baseline health status was observed among 4617 participants (mean age=64.4±9.5 years, 24% women), with the mean SAQ summary scores of 67.4±19.5 in Eastern Europe participants (17% of the total), 71.4±15.4 in Asia-Pacific (18%), 74.9±16.7 in Central and South America (10%), 75.5±19.5 in Western Europe (26%), and 78.6±19.2 in North America (28%). One-year improvements in SAQ scores were greater in regions with lower baseline scores with initial invasive management (17.7±20.9 in Eastern Europe and 11.4±19.3 in North America), but similar in the conservative arm. Adjusting for baseline SAQ scores, similar health status benefits of an initial invasive strategy on 1-year SAQ scores were observed (ranging from 2.38 points [95% CI, 0.04-4.50] in North America to 4.66 points [95% CI, 2.46-6.94] in Eastern Europe), with an 88.3% probability that the difference in benefit across regions was <5 points. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:In patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, initial invasive management was associated with a consistent health status benefit across regions, with modest regional variability, supporting the international generalizability of health status benefits from invasive management of chronic coronary disease. REGISTRATION/UNASSIGNED:URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to determine the prognostic value of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)-derived atherosclerotic plaque analysis in ISCHEMIA. METHODS:Atherosclerosis imaging quantitative computed tomography (AI-QCT) was performed on all available baseline CCTAs to quantify plaque volume, composition, and distribution. Multivariable Cox regression was used to examine the association between baseline risk factors (age, sex, smoking, diabetes, hypertension, ejection fraction, prior coronary disease, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and statin use), number of diseased vessels, atherosclerotic plaque characteristics determined by AI-QCT, and a composite primary outcome of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction over a median follow-up of 3.3 (interquartile range 2.2-4.4) years. The predictive value of plaque quantification over risk factors was compared in an area under the curve (AUC) analysis. RESULTS:Analysable CCTA data were available from 3711 participants (mean age 64 years, 21% female, 79% multivessel coronary artery disease). Amongst the AI-QCT variables, total plaque volume was most strongly associated with the primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio 1.56, 95% confidence interval 1.25-1.97 per interquartile range increase [559 mm3]; P = .001). The addition of AI-QCT plaque quantification and characterization to baseline risk factors improved the model's predictive value for the primary outcome at 6 months (AUC 0.688 vs. 0.637; P = .006), at 2 years (AUC 0.660 vs. 0.617; P = .003), and at 4 years of follow-up (AUC 0.654 vs. 0.608; P = .002). The findings were similar for the other reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:In ISCHEMIA, total plaque volume was associated with cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction. In this highly diseased, high-risk population, enhanced assessment of atherosclerotic burden using AI-QCT-derived measures of plaque volume and composition modestly improved event prediction.