After acute coronary syndrome, diabetes conveys an excess risk of ischaemic cardiovascular events. A reduction in mean LDL cholesterol to 1·4-1·8 mmol/L with ezetimibe or statins reduces cardiovascular events in patients with an acute coronary syndrome and diabetes. However, the efficacy and safety of further reduction in LDL cholesterol with an inhibitor of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) after acute coronary syndrome is unknown. We aimed to explore this issue in a prespecified analysis of the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial of the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab, assessing its effects on cardiovascular outcomes by baseline glycaemic status, while also assessing its effects on glycaemic measures including risk of new-onset diabetes. ODYSSEY OUTCOMES was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, done at 1315 sites in 57 countries, that compared alirocumab with placebo in patients who had been admitted to hospital with an acute coronary syndrome (myocardial infarction or unstable angina) 1-12 months before randomisation and who had raised concentrations of atherogenic lipoproteins despite use of high-intensity statins. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive alirocumab or placebo every 2 weeks; randomisation was stratified by country and was done centrally with an interactive voice-response or web-response system. Alirocumab was titrated to target LDL cholesterol concentrations of 0·65-1·30 mmol/L. In this prespecified analysis, we investigated the effect of alirocumab on cardiovascular events by glycaemic status at baseline (diabetes, prediabetes, or normoglycaemia)-defined on the basis of patient history, review of medical records, or baseline HbA1c or fasting serum glucose-and risk of new-onset diabetes among those without diabetes at baseline. The primary endpoint was a composite of death from coronary heart disease, non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal or non-fatal ischaemic stroke, or unstable angina requiring hospital admission. ODYSSEY OUTCOMES is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01663402. At study baseline, 5444 patients (28·8%) had diabetes, 8246 (43·6%) had prediabetes, and 5234 (27·7%) had normoglycaemia. There were no significant differences across glycaemic categories in median LDL cholesterol at baseline (2·20-2·28 mmol/L), after 4 months' treatment with alirocumab (0·80 mmol/L), or after 4 months' treatment with placebo (2·25-2·28 mmol/L). In the placebo group, the incidence of the primary endpoint over a median of 2·8 years was greater in patients with diabetes (16·4%) than in those with prediabetes (9·2%) or normoglycaemia (8·5%); hazard ratio (HR) for diabetes versus normoglycaemia 2·09 (95% CI 1·78-2·46, p<0·0001) and for diabetes versus prediabetes 1·90 (1·65-2·17, p<0·0001). Alirocumab resulted in similar relative reductions in the incidence of the primary endpoint in each glycaemic category, but a greater absolute reduction in the incidence of the primary endpoint in patients with diabetes (2·3%, 95% CI 0·4 to 4·2) than in those with prediabetes (1·2%, 0·0 to 2·4) or normoglycaemia (1·2%, -0·3 to 2·7; absolute risk reduction pinteraction=0·0019). Among patients without diabetes at baseline, 676 (10·1%) developed diabetes in the placebo group, compared with 648 (9·6%) in the alirocumab group; alirocumab did not increase the risk of new-onset diabetes (HR 1·00, 95% CI 0·89-1·11). HRs were 0·97 (95% CI 0·87-1·09) for patients with prediabetes and 1·30 (95% CI 0·93-1·81) for those with normoglycaemia (pinteraction=0·11). After a recent acute coronary syndrome, alirocumab treatment targeting an LDL cholesterol concentration of 0·65-1·30 mmol/L produced about twice the absolute reduction in cardiovascular events among patients with diabetes as in those without diabetes. Alirocumab treatment did not increase the risk of new-onset diabetes. Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

We aimed to evaluate the incremental value of high-sensitive troponin T (hsTnT) for risk prediction prior to non-cardiac surgery in comparison with the established revised cardiac index. In this prospective, international multicentre observational study, 979 patients prior to non-cardiac surgery were enrolled. The endpoints were in-hospital mortality, the combination of death, acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, cardio-pulmonary resuscitation, and acute decompensated heart failure. Twenty-five patients (2.6%) deceased and 36 (3.7%) of the patients experienced the combined endpoint. Cardiac markers were elevated in those patients who died when compared with survivors (hsTnT: 21 ng/L vs. 7 ng/L; P < 0.001; NT-proBNP: 576 pg/mL vs. 166 pg/mL; P < 0.001). Applying a cut-off for hsTnT of 14 ng/L and for NT-proBNP of 300 pg/mL, those patients with elevated hsTnT had a mortality of 6.9 vs. 1.2% (P < 0.001) and with elevated NT-proBNP 4.8 vs. 1.4% (P = 0.002). The highest AUC of the ROC curve was found for hsTnT as a predictor for mortality of 0.809. In a multivariate Cox regression analyses, hsTnT was the strongest independent predictor for the combined endpoint [HR 2.6 (95% CI: 1.3–5.3); P = 0.01]. High-sensitive troponin T provides strong prognostic information in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery incremental to the widely accepted revised cardiac index.

Aims: Various beta-blockers with distinct pharmacological profiles are approved in heart failure, yet they remain underused and underdosed. Although potentially of major public health importance, whether one agent is superior in terms of tolerability and optimal dosing has not been investigated. The aim of this study was therefore to compare the tolerability and clinical effects of two proven beta-blockers in elderly patients with heart failure. Methods and results: We performed a double-blind superiority trial of bisoprolol vs. carvedilol in 883 elderly heart failure patients with reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction in 41 European centres. The primary endpoint was tolerability, defined as reaching and maintaining guideline-recommended target doses after 12 weeks treatment. Adverse events and clinical parameters of patient status were secondary endpoints. None of the beta-blockers was superior with regards to tolerability: 24% [95% confidence interval (CI) 20–28] of patients in the bisoprolol arm and 25% (95% CI 21–29) of patients in the carvedilol arm achieved the primary endpoint (P= 0.64). The use of bisoprolol resulted in greater reduction of heart rate (adjusted mean difference 2.1 b.p.m., 95% CI 0.5–3.6, P= 0.008) and more, dose-limiting, bradycardic adverse events (16 vs. 11%; P= 0.02). The use of carvedilol led to a reduction of forced expiratory volume (adjusted mean difference 50 mL, 95% CI 4–95, P= 0.03) and more, non-dose-limiting, pulmonary adverse events (10 vs. 4%; P < 0.001). Conclusion: Overall tolerability to target doses was comparable. The pattern of intolerance, however, was different: bradycardia occurred more often in the bisoprolol group, whereas pulmonary adverse events occurred more often in the carvedilol group. This study is registered with controlled-trials.com, number ISRCTN34827306.

This study evaluated the tolerability and feasibility of titration of 2 distinctly acting beta-blockers (BB) in elderly heart failure patients with preserved (HFpEF) and reduced (HFrEF) left ventricular ejection fraction. Broad evidence supports the use of BB in HFrEF, whereas the evidence for beta blockade in HFpEF is uncertain. In the CIBIS-ELD (Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study in Elderly) trial, patients >65 years of age with HFrEF (n = 626) or HFpEF (n = 250) were randomized to bisoprolol or carvedilol. Both BB were up-titrated to the target or maximum tolerated dose. Follow-up was performed after 12 weeks. HFrEF and HFpEF patients were compared regarding tolerability and clinical effects (heart rate, blood pressure, systolic and diastolic functions, New York Heart Association functional class, 6-minute-walk distance, quality of life, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide). For both of the BBs, tolerability and daily dose at 12 weeks were similar. HFpEF patients demonstrated higher rates of dose escalation delays and treatment-related side effects. Similar HR reductions were observed in both groups (HFpEF: 6.6 beats/min; HFrEF: 6.9 beats/min, p = NS), whereas greater improvement in NYHA functional class was observed in HFrEF (HFpEF: 23% vs. HFrEF: 34%, p < 0.001). Mean E/e' and left atrial volume index did not change in either group, although E/A increased in HFpEF. BB tolerability was comparable between HFrEF and HFpEF. Relevant reductions of HR and blood pressure occurred in both groups. However, only HFrEF patients experienced considerable improvements in clinical parameters and left ventricular function. Interestingly, beta-blockade had no effect on established and prognostic markers of diastolic function in either group. Long-term studies using modern diagnostic criteria for HFpEF are urgently needed to establish whether BB therapy exerts significant clinical benefit in HFpEF. (Comparison of Bisoprolol and Carvedilol in Elderly Heart Failure [HF] A Randomised, Double-Blind Multicentre Study [CIBIS-ELD]; ISRCTN34827306).