Rationale and design of the pragmatic randomized trial of icosapent ethyl for high cardiovascular risk adults (MITIGATE)

High residual cardiovascular risk after lipid-lowering: prime time for Predictive, Preventive, Personalized, Participatory, and Psycho-cognitive medicine

As time has come to translate trial results into individualized medical diagnosis and therapy, we analyzed how to minimize residual risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) by reviewing papers on "residual cardiovascular disease risk". During this review process we found 989 papers that started off with residual CVD risk after initiating statin therapy, continued with papers on residual CVD risk after initiating therapy to increase high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C), followed by papers on residual CVD risk after initiating therapy to decrease triglyceride (TG) levels. Later on, papers dealing with elevated levels of lipoprotein remnants and lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] reported new risk factors of residual CVD risk. And as new risk factors are being discovered and new therapies are being tested, residual CVD risk will be reduced further. As we move from CVD risk reduction to improvement of patient management, a paradigm shift from a reductionistic approach towards a holistic approach is required. To that purpose, a personalized treatment dependent on the individual's CVD risk factors including lipid profile abnormalities should be configured, along the line of P5 medicine for each individual patient, i.e., with Predictive, Preventive, Personalized, Participatory, and Psycho-cognitive approaches.

A Critical Review of Icosapent Ethyl in Cardiovascular Risk Reduction

Icosapent ethyl (IPE) was the first fish oil product the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved to reduce the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in adults. IPE is an esterified version of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and acts as a prodrug in the body to exert its effects. IPE affects the body primarily through triglyceride (TG) reduction and was initially indicated for hypertriglyceridemia in addition to statin therapy or for patients with statin intolerances. Various studies have investigated this agent, and multiple subanalyses have been conducted since the FDA approval. These subanalyses have assessed factors such as sex, statin therapy, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels (hs-CRP), and various inflammatory biomarkers in groups of patients taking IPE. This article aims to provide a critical review of the clinical data available regarding cardiovascular benefits of IPE in patients with ASCVD and its value as a treatment option for patients with elevated TG levels.

Pneumonia-Induced Inflammation, Resolution and Cardiovascular Disease: Causes, Consequences and Clinical Opportunities

Pneumonia is inflammation in the lungs, which is usually caused by an infection. The symptoms of pneumonia can vary from mild to life-threatening, where severe illness is often observed in vulnerable populations like children, older adults, and those with preexisting health conditions. Vaccines have greatly reduced the burden of some of the most common causes of pneumonia, and the use of antimicrobials has greatly improved the survival to this infection. However, pneumonia survivors do not return to their preinfection health trajectories but instead experience an accelerated health decline with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. The mechanisms of this association are not well understood, but a persistent dysregulated inflammatory response post-pneumonia appears to play a central role. It is proposed that the inflammatory response during pneumonia is left unregulated and exacerbates atherosclerotic vascular disease, which ultimately leads to adverse cardiac events such as myocardial infarction. For this reason, there is a need to better understand the inflammatory cross talk between the lungs and the heart during and after pneumonia to develop therapeutics that focus on preventing pneumonia-associated cardiovascular events. This review will provide an overview of the known mechanisms of inflammation triggered during pneumonia and their relevance to the increased cardiovascular risk that follows this infection. We will also discuss opportunities for new clinical approaches leveraging strategies to promote inflammatory resolution pathways as a novel therapeutic target to reduce the risk of cardiac events post-pneumonia.

Omega-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids (n-3 PUFAs) for Immunomodulation in COVID-19 Related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS)

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), might be complicated by Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) caused by severe lung damage. It is relevant to find treatments for COVID-19-related ARDS. Currently, DHA and EPA n-3 PUFAs, known for their immunomodulatory activities, have been proposed for COVID-19 management, and clinical trials are ongoing. Here, examining COVID-19-related ARDS immunopathology, we reference in vitro and in vivo studies, indicating n-3 PUFA immunomodulation on lung microenvironment (bronchial and alveolar epithelial cells, macrophages, infiltrating immune cells) and ARDS, potentially affecting immune responses in COVID-19-related ARDS. Concerning in vitro studies, evidence exists of the potential anti-inflammatory activity of DHA on airway epithelial cells and monocytes/macrophages; however, it is necessary to analyze n-3 PUFA immunomodulation using viral experimental models relevant to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Then, although pre-clinical investigations in experimental acute lung injury/ARDS revealed beneficial immunomodulation by n-3 PUFAs when extracellular pathogen infections were used as lung inflammatory models, contradictory results were reported using intracellular viral infections. Finally, clinical trials investigating n-3 PUFA immunomodulation in ARDS are limited, with small samples and contradictory results. In conclusion, further in vitro and in vivo investigations are needed to establish whether n-3 PUFAs may have some therapeutic potential in COVID-19-related ARDS.

A biological rationale for the disparate effects of omega-3 fatty acids on cardiovascular disease outcomes

The omega-3 fatty acids (n3-FAs) eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) rapidly incorporate into cell membranes where they modulate signal transduction pathways, lipid raft formation, and cholesterol distribution. Membrane n3-FAs also form specialized pro-resolving mediators and other intracellular oxylipins that modulate inflammatory pathways, including T-cell differentiation and gene expression. Cardiovascular (CV) trials have shown that EPA, administered as icosapent ethyl (IPE), reduces composite CV events, along with plaque volume, in statin-treated, high-risk patients. Mixed EPA/DHA regimens have not shown these benefits, perhaps as the result of differences in formulation, dosage, or potential counter-regulatory actions of DHA. Indeed, EPA and DHA have distinct, tissue-specific effects on membrane structural organization and cell function. This review summarizes: (1) results of clinical outcome and imaging trials using n3-FA formulations; (2) membrane interactions of n3-FAs; (3) effects of n3-FAs on membrane oxidative stress and cholesterol crystalline domain formation during hyperglycemia; (4) n3-FA effects on endothelial function; (5) role of n3-FA-generated metabolites in inflammation; and (6) ongoing and future clinical investigations exploring treatment targets for n3-FAs, including COVID-19.

Marine-derived n-3 fatty acids therapy for stroke

BACKGROUND

Currently, with stroke burden increasing, there is a need to explore therapeutic options that ameliorate the acute insult. There is substantial evidence of a neuroprotective effect of marine-derived n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) in animal models of stroke, leading to a better functional outcome.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of administration of marine-derived n-3 PUFAs on functional outcomes and dependence in people with stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Trials Register (last searched 31 May 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2021, Issue 5), MEDLINE Ovid (from 1948 to 31 May 2021), Embase Ovid (from 1980 to 31 May 2021), CINAHL EBSCO (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; from 1982 to 31 May 2021), Science Citation Index Expanded ‒ Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED), Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science - Web of Science (CPCI-S), and BIOSIS Citation Index. We also searched ongoing trial registers, reference lists, relevant systematic reviews, and used the Science Citation Index Reference Search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing marine-derived n-3 PUFAs to placebo or open control (no placebo) in people with a history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA), or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the body of evidence. We contacted study authors for clarification and additional information on stroke/TIA participants. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis or narrative synthesis, as appropriate. The primary outcome was efficacy (functional outcome) assessed using a validated scale, for example, the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) dichotomised into poor or good clinical outcome, the Barthel Index (higher score is better; scale from 0 to 100), or the Rivermead Mobility Index (higher score is better; scale from 0 to 15). Our secondary outcomes were vascular-related death, recurrent events, incidence of other type of stroke, adverse events, quality of life, and mood.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 30 RCTs; nine of them provided outcome data (3339 participants). Only one study included participants in the acute phase of stroke (haemorrhagic). Doses of marine-derived n-3 PUFAs ranged from 400 mg/day to 3300 mg/day. Risk of bias was generally low or unclear in most trials, with a higher risk of bias in smaller studies. We assessed results separately for short (up to three months) and longer (more than three months) follow-up studies. Short follow-up (up to three months) Functional outcome was reported in only one pilot study as poor clinical outcome assessed with the GOSE (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.68, P = 0.52; 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Mood (assessed with the GHQ-30, lower score better) was reported by only one study and favoured control (mean difference (MD) 1.41, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.75, P = 0.04; 102 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of an effect of the intervention for the remainder of the secondary outcomes: vascular-related death (two studies, not pooled due to differences in population, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.00, P = 0.50, and RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.72, P = 0.49; 142 participants; low-certainty evidence); recurrent events (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.02 to 8.84, P = 0.57; 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence); incidence of other type of stroke (two studies, not pooled due to different type of index stroke, RR 6.11, 95% CI 0.33 to 111.71, P = 0.22, and RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.58, P = 0.32; 58 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and quality of life (physical component, MD -2.31, 95% CI -4.81 to 0.19, P = 0.07, and mental component, MD -2.16, 95% CI -5.91 to 1.59, P = 0.26; 1 study; 102 participants; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were reported by two studies (57 participants; very low-certainty evidence), one trial reporting extracranial haemorrhage (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.73, P = 0.16) and the other one reporting bleeding complications (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.35, P = 0.47). Longer follow-up (more than three months) One small trial assessed functional outcome with both the Barthel Index for activities of daily living (MD 7.09, 95% CI -5.16 to 19.34, P = 0.26), and the Rivermead Mobility Index for mobility (MD 1.30, 95% CI -1.31 to 3.91, P = 0.33) (52 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We carried out meta-analysis for vascular-related death (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35, P = 0.86; 5 studies; 2237 participants; low-certainty evidence) and fatal recurrent events (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.55, P = 0.37; 3 studies; 1819 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of an effect of the intervention for mood (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.07 to 4.07, P = 0.61; 1 study; 14 participants; low-certainty evidence). Incidence of other type of stroke and quality of life were not reported. Adverse events (all combined) were reported by only one study (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.58, P = 0.82; 1455 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are very uncertain of the effect of marine-derived n-3 PUFAs therapy on functional outcomes and dependence after stroke as there is insufficient high-certainty evidence. More well-designed RCTs are needed, specifically in acute stroke, to determine the efficacy and safety of the intervention. Studies assessing functional outcome might consider starting the intervention as early as possible after the event, as well as using standardised, clinically relevant measures for functional outcomes, such as the modified Rankin Scale. Optimal doses remain to be determined; delivery forms (type of lipid carriers) and mode of administration (ingestion or injection) also need further consideration.

The need for increased pragmatism in cardiovascular clinical trials

The majority of cardiovascular randomized controlled trials (RCTs) test interventions in selected patient populations under explicitly protocol-defined settings. Although these ‘explanatory’ trial designs optimize conditions to test the efficacy and safety of an intervention, they limit the generalizability of trial findings in broader clinical settings. The concept of ‘pragmatism’ in RCTs addresses this concern by providing counterbalance to the more idealized situation underpinning explanatory RCTs and optimizing effectiveness over efficacy. The central tenets of pragmatism in RCTs are to test interventions in routine clinical settings, with patients who are representative of broad clinical practice, and to reduce the burden on investigators and participants by minimizing the number of trial visits and the intensity of trial-based testing. Pragmatic evaluation of interventions is particularly important in cardiovascular diseases, where the risk of death among patients has remained fairly stable over the past few decades despite the development of new therapeutic interventions. Pragmatic RCTs can help to reveal the ‘real-world’ effectiveness of therapeutic interventions and elucidate barriers to their implementation. In this Review, we discuss the attributes of pragmatism in RCT design, conduct and interpretation as well as the general need for increased pragmatism in cardiovascular RCTs. We also summarize current challenges and potential solutions to the implementation of pragmatism in RCTs and highlight selected ongoing and completed cardiovascular RCTs with pragmatic trial designs.

In this Review, Khan and colleagues discuss the benefits and challenges of including pragmatism in the design, conduct and interpretation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for cardiovascular disease and highlight selected ongoing and completed cardiovascular RCTs that incorporate a pragmatic design.

Most cardiovascular randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted to date have been ‘explanatory’, that is, designed to study the intervention in optimized conditions with selected patient populations and frequent protocolized assessments.

Although explanatory RCT designs increase validity, they limit the generalizability of trial findings, whereas a ‘pragmatic’ approach to RCTs yields findings more relevant to real-world practice.

In pragmatic RCTs, interventions are tested in patients who are broadly representative of the condition being studied, and the study is aligned with routine clinical care to reduce costs and organizational burden.

Although pragmatic RCTs tend to attenuate estimates of treatment effects, they do provide a more realistic understanding of population-level effectiveness and costs than explanatory trials.

Pragmatic trials can highlight barriers to the implementation of therapies and are better suited than explanatory RCTs to assessing the effects of implementation strategies and health-care policies at the population level.

Widespread implementation of pragmatic trials would require the development of technological infrastructure to collect and share data as well as regulatory guidelines amenable to findings derived from routinely collected data.

Investigating Lipid-Modulating Agents for Prevention or Treatment of COVID-19: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is associated with systemic inflammation, endothelial activation, and multiorgan manifestations. Lipid-modulating agents may be useful in treating patients with COVID-19. These agents may inhibit viral entry by lipid raft disruption or ameliorate the inflammatory response and endothelial activation. In addition, dyslipidemia with lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and higher triglyceride levels portend worse outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Upon a systematic search, 40 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with lipid-modulating agents were identified, including 17 statin trials, 14 omega-3 fatty acids RCTs, 3 fibrate RCTs, 5 niacin RCTs, and 1 dalcetrapib RCT for the management or prevention of COVID-19. From these 40 RCTs, only 2 have reported preliminary results, and most others are ongoing. This paper summarizes the ongoing or completed RCTs of lipid-modulating agents in COVID-19 and the implications of these trials for patient management.

EPA's pleiotropic mechanisms of action: a narrative review

Treatment with icosapent ethyl 4 g/day, a highly purified and stable ethyl ester of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), demonstrated a significant reduction in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events and death in REDUCE-IT. However, analyses of REDUCE-IT and meta-analyses have suggested that this clinical benefit is greater than can be achieved by triglyceride reduction alone. EPA therefore may have additional pleiotropic effects, including anti-inflammatory and anti-aggregatory mechanisms. EPA competes with arachidonic acid for cyclooxygenase and lipoxygenase, producing anti-inflammatory and anti-aggregatory metabolites rather than the more deleterious metabolites associated with arachidonic acid. Changing the EPA:arachidonic acid ratio may shift metabolic status from pro-inflammatory/pro-aggregatory to anti-inflammatory/anti-aggregatory. EPA also has antioxidant effects and increases synthesis of nitric oxide. Incorporation of EPA into phospholipid bilayers influences membrane structure and may help to prevent cardiac arrhythmias. Clinically, this may translate into improved vascular health, including regression of atherosclerotic plaque. Overall, EPA has a range of pleiotropic effects that contribute to a reduction in ASCVD.

Lipid-Modulating Agents for Prevention or Treatment of COVID-19 in Randomized Trials

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with systemic inflammation, endothelial activation, and multi-organ manifestations. Lipid modulating agents may be useful in treating patients with COVID-19. They may inhibit viral entry by lipid raft disruption or ameliorate the inflammatory response and endothelial activation. In addition, dyslipidemia with lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and higher triglycerides portends worse outcome in patients with COVID-19. Upon a systematic search, 40 RCTs with lipid modulating agents were identified, including 17 statin trials, 14 omega-3 fatty acids RCTs, 3 fibrates RCTs, 5 niacin RCTs, and 1 dalcetrapib RCT for management or prevention of COVID-19. This manuscript summarizes the ongoing or completed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of lipid modulating agents in COVID-19 and the implications of these trials for patient management.