Methods: Using a 2-by-2 factorial design, 12 705 participants from 21 countries with vascular risk factors but without overt cardiovascular disease were randomized to candesartan 16 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg daily or placebo and to rosuvastatin 10 mg daily or placebo. The effect of the interventions on stroke subtypes was assessed.

Results: Participants were 66 years old and 46% were women. Baseline blood pressure (138/82 mm Hg) was reduced by 6.0/3.0 mm Hg and LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; 3.3 mmol/L) was reduced by 0.90 mmol/L on active treatment. During 5.6 years of follow-up, 169 strokes occurred (117 ischemic, 29 hemorrhagic, 23 undetermined). Blood pressure lowering did not significantly reduce stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.59–1.08]), ischemic stroke (HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.55–1.15]), hemorrhagic stroke (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.34–1.48]), or strokes of undetermined origin (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.41–2.08]). Rosuvastatin significantly reduced strokes (HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.52–0.95]), with reductions mainly in ischemic stroke (HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.37–0.78]) but did not significantly affect hemorrhagic (HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.59–2.54]) or strokes of undetermined origin (HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 0.57–2.95]). The combination of both interventions compared with double placebo substantially and significantly reduced strokes (HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.36–0.87]) and ischemic strokes (HR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.23–0.72]).

Conclusions: Among people at intermediate cardiovascular risk but without overt cardiovascular disease, rosuvastatin 10 mg daily significantly reduced first stroke. Blood pressure lowering combined with rosuvastatin reduced ischemic stroke by 59%. Both therapies are safe and generally well tolerated.

METHODS: The PURE study is a prospective, population-based cohort study of individuals aged 35-70 years who have been enrolled from 21 countries across five continents. The key outcomes were the incidence of fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular diseases, cancers, injuries, respiratory diseases, and hospital admissions, and we calculated the age-standardised and sex-standardised incidence of these events per 1000 person-years.

FINDINGS: This analysis assesses the incidence of events in 162 534 participants who were enrolled in the first two phases of the PURE core study, between Jan 6, 2005, and Dec 4, 2016, and who were assessed for a median of 9·5 years (IQR 8·5-10·9). During follow-up, 11 307 (7·0%) participants died, 9329 (5·7%) participants had cardiovascular disease, 5151 (3·2%) participants had a cancer, 4386 (2·7%) participants had injuries requiring hospital admission, 2911 (1·8%) participants had pneumonia, and 1830 (1·1%) participants had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Cardiovascular disease occurred more often in LICs (7·1 cases per 1000 person-years) and in MICs (6·8 cases per 1000 person-years) than in HICs (4·3 cases per 1000 person-years). However, incident cancers, injuries, COPD, and pneumonia were most common in HICs and least common in LICs. Overall mortality rates in LICs (13·3 deaths per 1000 person-years) were double those in MICs (6·9 deaths per 1000 person-years) and four times higher than in HICs (3·4 deaths per 1000 person-years). This pattern of the highest mortality in LICs and the lowest in HICs was observed for all causes of death except cancer, where mortality was similar across country income levels. Cardiovascular disease was the most common cause of deaths overall (40%) but accounted for only 23% of deaths in HICs (vs 41% in MICs and 43% in LICs), despite more cardiovascular disease risk factors (as judged by INTERHEART risk scores) in HICs and the fewest such risk factors in LICs. The ratio of deaths from cardiovascular disease to those from cancer was 0·4 in HICs, 1·3 in MICs, and 3·0 in LICs, and four upper-MICs (Argentina, Chile, Turkey, and Poland) showed ratios similar to the HICs. Rates of first hospital admission and cardiovascular disease medication use were lowest in LICs and highest in HICs.

INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 35-70 years, cardiovascular disease is the major cause of mortality globally. However, in HICs and some upper-MICs, deaths from cancer are now more common than those from cardiovascular disease, indicating a transition in the predominant causes of deaths in middle-age. As cardiovascular disease decreases in many countries, mortality from cancer will probably become the leading cause of death. The high mortality in poorer countries is not related to risk factors, but it might be related to poorer access to health care.

METHODS AND RESULTS: After the randomized treatment period (5.6 years), participants were invited to participate in 3.1 further years of observation (total 8.7 years). The first co-primary outcome for the entire length of follow-up was the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or CV death [major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE)-1], and the second was MACE-1 plus resuscitated cardiac arrest, heart failure, or coronary revascularization (MACE-2). In total, 9326 (78%) of 11 994 surviving Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE)-3 subjects consented to participate in extended follow-up. During 3.1 years of post-trial observation (total follow-up of 8.7 years), participants originally randomized to rosuvastatin compared with placebo had a 20% additional reduction in MACE-1 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64-0.99] and a 17% additional reduction in MACE-2 (95% CI 0.68-1.01). Therefore, over the 8.7 years of follow-up, there was a 21% reduction in MACE-1 (95% CI 0.69-0.90, P = 0.005) and 21% reduction in MACE-2 (95% CI 0.69-0.89, P = 0.002). There was no benefit of BP lowering in the overall study either during the active or post-trial observation period, however, a 24% reduction in MACE-1 was observed over 8.7 years.

CONCLUSION: The CV benefits of rosuvastatin, and BP lowering in those with elevated systolic BP, compared with placebo continue to accrue for at least 3 years after cessation of randomized treatment in individuals without cardiovascular disease indicating a legacy effect.

METHODS: HRD status was determined using the ACTHRD assay, an enrichment-based targeted next-generation sequencing assay. PD-L1 expression was assessed by SP263 immunohistochemistry assay. PD-L1 expression positivity was defined by the PD-L1 expression on ≥ 1% of immune cells. Kaplan-Meier method was utilised to analyse progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS: This exploratory biomarker analysis included 225 patients and tested HRD status [N = 190; positive, N = 125 (65.8%)], PD-L1 expression [N = 196; positive, N = 56 (28.6%)], and BRCA1/2 mutation status (N = 219). The HRD-positive patients displayed greater median PFS than the HRD-negative patients [17.9 months (95% CI: 14.5-22.1) versus 9.2 months (95% CI: 7.5-13.8)]. PD-L1 was predominantly expressed on immune cells. Positive PD-L1 expression on immune cells was associated with shortened median PFS in the patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations [14.5 months (95% CI: 7.4-18.2) versus 22.2 months (95% CI: 18.3-NA)]. Conversely, positive PD-L1 expression on immune cells was associated with prolonged median PFS in the patients with wild-type BRCA1/2 [20.9 months (95% CI: 13.9-NA) versus 8.3 months (95% CI: 6.7-13.8)].

CONCLUSIONS: HRD remained an effective biomarker for enhanced olaparib efficacy in the Asian patients with PSROC. Positive PD-L1 expression was associated with decreased olaparib efficacy in the patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations but associated with improved olaparib efficacy in the patients with wild-type BRCA1/2.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Considering the limited placebo effect and significant clinical benefit of olaparib in previous trials, and the rapid approval of olaparib in China, this phase III study was designed as an open-label, single-arm trial. Patients with high-grade epithelial PSR ovarian cancer were enrolled from country-wide clinical centers across China and Malaysia. Patients received oral olaparib (300 mg) twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was median PFS (mPFS). Primary analysis of PFS using the Kaplan-Meier method was performed when data reached 60% maturity (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03534453).

RESULTS: Between 2018 and 2020, 225 patients were enrolled, and 224 received olaparib; 35.7% had received ≥3 lines of chemotherapy, 35.3% had achieved complete response to their last line of platinum-based chemotherapy, and 41.1% had a platinum-free interval ≤12 months. At primary data cut-off (December 25, 2020), overall mPFS was 16.1 months; mPFS was 21.2 and 11.0 months in BRCA-mutated and wild-type BRCA subgroups, respectively. Adverse events (AE) occurred in 99.1% of patients (grade ≥3, 48.7%); 9.4% discontinued therapy due to treatment-related AEs.

METHODS: We performed a 3 × 2 partial factorial double-blind trial of 17,598 participants with stable cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease. Participants were randomly assigned to groups given pantoprazole 40 mg daily or placebo, as well as rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily with aspirin 100 mg once daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily, or aspirin 100 mg alone. The primary outcome was time to first upper gastrointestinal event, defined as a composite of overt bleeding, upper gastrointestinal bleeding from a gastroduodenal lesion or of unknown origin, occult bleeding, symptomatic gastroduodenal ulcer or ≥5 erosions, upper gastrointestinal obstruction, or perforation.

RESULTS: There was no significant difference in upper gastrointestinal events between the pantoprazole group (102 of 8791 events) and the placebo group (116 of 8807 events) (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-1.15). Pantoprazole significantly reduced bleeding of gastroduodenal lesions (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.94; P = .03); this reduction was greater when we used a post-hoc definition of bleeding gastroduodenal lesion (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.74), although the number needed to treat still was high (n = 982; 95% confidence interval, 609-2528).

METHODS: We performed a 3 × 2 partial factorial double-blind trial of 17,598 participants with stable cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease randomly assigned to groups given pantoprazole (40 mg daily, n = 8791) or placebo (n = 8807). Participants were also randomly assigned to groups that received rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) with aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg) alone. We collected data on development of pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, other enteric infections, fractures, gastric atrophy, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, chronic obstructive lung disease, dementia, cardiovascular disease, cancer, hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality every 6 months. Patients were followed up for a median of 3.01 years, with 53,152 patient-years of follow-up.

RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the pantoprazole and placebo groups in safety events except for enteric infections (1.4% vs 1.0% in the placebo group; odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.75). For all other safety outcomes, proportions were similar between groups except for C difficile infection, which was approximately twice as common in the pantoprazole vs the placebo group, although there were only 13 events, so this difference was not statistically significant.

METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months.

RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=-4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group.

METHODS: Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) is a double-blind superiority trial comparing rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily combined with aspirin 100 mg once daily or rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily vs aspirin 100 mg once daily for prevention of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death in patients with stable CAD or PAD. Patients not taking a proton pump inhibitor were also randomized, using a partial factorial design, to pantoprazole 40 mg once daily or placebo. The trial was designed to have at least 90% power to detect a 20% reduction in each of the rivaroxaban treatment arms compared with aspirin and to detect a 50% reduction in upper GI complications with pantoprazole compared with placebo.

RESULTS: Between February 2013 and May 2016, we recruited 27,395 participants from 602 centres in 33 countries; 17,598 participants were included in the pantoprazole vs placebo comparison. At baseline, the mean age was 68.2 years, 22.0% were female, 90.6% had CAD, and 27.3% had PAD.

METHODS AND RESULTS: Of the 27 395 patients enrolled in COMPASS, 12 964 (mean age at baseline 67.2 years) from 455 sites in 32 countries were enrolled in LTOLE and treated with the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin for a median of 374 additional days (range 1-1191 days). During LTOLE, the incident events per 100 patient years were as follows: for the primary outcome [cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI)] 2.35 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.11-2.61], mortality 1.87 (1.65-2.10), stroke 0.62 (0.50-0.76), and MI 1.02 (0.86-1.19), with CIs that overlapped those seen during the randomized treatment phase with the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin. The incidence rates for major and minor bleeding were 1.01 (0.86-1.19) and 2.49 (2.24-2.75), compared with 1.67 (1.48-1.87) and 5.11 (95% CI 4.77-5.47), respectively, during the randomized treatment phase with the combination.