Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Coronary artery bypass surgery’

Coronary artery disease in symptomatic patients referred for coronary angiography: Predicted by Serum Protein Profiles

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
BMC Med. 2012 Dec 5;10(1):157. [Epub ahead of print]

Serum protein profiles predict coronary artery disease in symptomatic patients referred for coronary angiography.

Laframboise WADhir RKelly LAPetrosko PKrill-Burger JMSciulli CMLyons-Weiler MAChandran URLomakin AMasterson RVMarroquin OC,Mulukutla SRMcNamara DM.

ABSTRACT:

BACKGROUND: More than a million diagnostic cardiac catheterizations are performed annually in the US for evaluation of coronary artery anatomy and the presence of atherosclerosis. Nearly half of these patients have no significant coronary lesions or do not require mechanical or surgical revascularization. Consequently, the ability to rule out clinically significant coronary artery disease (CAD) using low cost, low risk tests of serum biomarkers in even a small percentage of patients with normal coronary arteries could be highly beneficial.

METHODS:

Serum from 359 symptomatic subjects referred for catheterization was interrogated for proteins involved in atherogenesis, atherosclerosis, and plaque vulnerability. Coronary angiography classified 150 patients without flow-limiting CAD who did not require percutaneous intervention (PCI) while 209 required coronary revascularization (stents, angioplasty, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery). Continuous variables were compared across the two patient groups for each analyte including calculation of false discovery rate (FDR [less than or equal to]1%) and Q value (P value for statistical significance adjusted to [less than or equal to]0.01).

RESULTS:

Significant differences were detected in circulating proteins from patients requiring revascularization including increased apolipoprotein B100 (APO-B100), C-reactive protein (CRP), fibrinogen, vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 (VCAM-1), myeloperoxidase (MPO), resistin, osteopontin, interleukin (IL)-1beta, IL-6, IL-10 and N-terminal fragment protein precursor brain natriuretic peptide (NT-pBNP) and decreased apolipoprotein A1 (APO-A1). Biomarker classification signatures comprising up to 5 analytes were identified using a tunable scoring function trained against 239 samples and validated with 120 additional samples. A total of 14 overlapping signatures classified patients without significant coronary disease (38% to 59% specificity) while maintaining 95% sensitivity for patients requiring revascularization. Osteopontin (14 times) and resistin (10 times) were most frequently represented among these diagnostic signatures. The most efficacious protein signature in validation studies comprised osteopontin (OPN), resistin, matrix metalloproteinase 7 (MMP7) and interferon gamma (IFNgamma) as a four-marker panel while the addition of either CRP or adiponectin (ACRP-30) yielded comparable results in five protein signatures.

CONCLUSIONS:

Proteins in the serum of CAD patients predominantly reflected (1) a positive acute phase, inflammatory response and (2) alterations in lipid metabolism, transport, peroxidation and accumulation. There were surprisingly few indicators of growth factor activation or extracellular matrix remodeling in the serum of CAD patients except for elevated OPN. These data suggest that many symptomatic patients without significant CAD could be identified by a targeted multiplex serum protein test without cardiac catheterization thereby eliminating exposure to ionizing radiation and decreasing the economic burden of angiographic testing for these patients.

 
 SOURCE:

Other related articles on this Open Access Online Scientific Journal:

 

Assessing Cardiovascular Disease with Biomarkers

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/12/25/assessing-cardiovascular-disease-with-biomarkers/#comment-6990

 

To Stent or Not? A Critical Decision

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/10/23/to-stent-or-not-a-critical-decision/

Obstructive coronary artery disease diagnosed by RNA levels of 23 genes – CardioDx heart disease test wins Medicare coverage

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/08/14/obstructive-coronary-artery-disease-diagnosed-by-rna-levels-of-23-genes-cardiodx-heart-disease-test-wins-medicare-coverage/

 

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/?s=PCI

 

Read Full Post »

CABG or PCI: Patients with Diabetes – CABG Rein Supreme

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

VIEW VIDEO

105

Compelling Evidence for Coronary-Bypass Surgery in Patients with Diabetes

Mark A. Hlatky, M.D.

November 4, 2012DOI: 10.1056/NEJMe1212278

Seventeen years ago, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute issued a clinical alert1 that coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) had better rates of survival than percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes. The alert was based on the results of the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) trial,2 in which patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to undergo either CABG or PCI.

This recommendation has been controversial ever since, largely because subsequent trials comparing CABG and PCI have enrolled only small numbers of patients with diabetes. A pooled analysis of 10 randomized trials involving 1233 patients with diabetes confirmed that such patients had a particular survival advantage after CABG, as compared with PCI.3 But this evidence was discounted because drug-eluting stents were not used in PCI procedures in the earlier trials, and more recent trials in which drug-eluting stents were used4,5 enrolled relatively few patients with diabetes. Settling this controversy would require a trial with a large number of patients with both diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease in whom CABG or PCI would be performed with the use of contemporary methods.

Farkouh et al.6 now report in the Journal the results of the definitive Future Revascularization Evaluation in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: Optimal Management of Multivessel Disease (FREEDOM) trial, in which 1900 patients with diabetes (about as many patients with diabetes as in all previous trials combined) were randomly assigned to undergo either CABG or PCI with drug-eluting stents.

As a cardiologist who does not perform either procedure, I find that the FREEDOM trial provides compelling evidence of the comparative effectiveness of CABG versus PCI in patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease. After 5 years of follow-up, the 947 patients assigned to undergo CABG had significantly lower mortality (10.9% vs. 16.3%) and fewer myocardial infarctions (6.0% vs. 13.9%) than the 953 patients assigned to undergo PCI. However, patients in the CABG group had significantly more strokes (5.2% vs. 2.4%), mostly because of strokes that occurred within 30 days after revascularization. In the CABG group, the primary composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke over 5 years was reduced by 7.9 percentage points, or a relative decrease of 30%, as compared with PCI (18.7% vs. 26.6%, P=0.005). These results are consistent with the findings of multiple previous trials comparing CABG and PCI in patients with diabetes,3 as well as the most recent trials in which drug-eluting stents were used during PCI.4,5

Despite the results of BARI and other trials, over time more and more patients with diabetes have undergone PCI rather than CABG to treat multivessel coronary disease.7,8 The reasons for this trend are uncertain, yet there are two broad potential explanations. First, because PCI technology continues to evolve, many cardiologists simply have dismissed the results of earlier randomized studies as outdated because they used earlier techniques. This is a catch-22, since long-term studies are needed to compare hard outcomes, but evidence from long-term studies may be ignored if therapies are evolving. The results of the FREEDOM trial suggest that the comparative effectiveness of CABG and PCI on hard outcomes remains similar whether PCI is performed without stents, with bare-metal stents, or with drug-eluting stents. Mortality has been consistently reduced by CABG, as compared with PCI, in more than 4000 patients with diabetes who have been evaluated in 13 clinical trials. The controversy should finally be settled.

Another potential reason for the increasing use of PCI in patients with multivessel coronary disease is that the clinical-decision pathway leads patients toward PCI over alternative treatments. Many PCIs today are ad hoc procedures, performed at the time of diagnostic coronary angiography, with the same physician making the diagnosis, recommending the treatment, and performing the procedure. There is little time for informed discussion about alternative treatment options, either medical therapy on the one hand or CABG on the other. Well-informed patients might choose any of those options on the basis of their concerns about the various outcomes of treatment, such as survival, stroke, myocardial infarction, angina, and recovery time. This is a complicated decision, and clinical guidelines in the United States9 and Europe10 now emphasize the importance of more deliberate decision making about coronary revascularization, including discussions with a multidisciplinary heart team.

The results of the FREEDOM trial suggest that patients with diabetes ought to be informed about the potential survival benefit from CABG for the treatment of multivessel disease. These discussions should begin before coronary angiography in order to provide enough time for the patient to digest the information, discuss it with family members and members of the heart team, and come to an informed decision.

Disclosure forms provided by the author are available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.

This article was published on November 4, 2012, at NEJM.org.

SOURCE INFORMATION

From Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA.

REFERENCES:

REFERENCES

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). Clinical alert: bypass over angioplasty for patients with diabetes. US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, September 21, 1995 (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/databases/alerts/bypass_diabetes.html).
  2. The Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) Investigators. Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with angioplasty in patients with multivessel disease. N Engl J Med 1996;335:217-225[Erratum, N Engl J Med 1997;336:147.]Full Text | Web of Science
  3. Hlatky MA, Boothroyd DB, Bravata DM, et al. Coronary artery bypass surgery compared with percutaneous coronary interventions for multivessel disease: a collaborative analysis of individual patient data from ten randomised trials. Lancet 2009;373:1190-1197CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline
  4. Kappetein AP, Feldman TE, Mack MJ, et al. Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with drug-eluting stenting for the treatment of left main and/or three-vessel disease: 3-year follow-up of the SYNTAX trial. Eur Heart J 2011;32:2125-2134CrossRef | Web of Science
  5. Hall R. Coronary Artery Revascularisation in Diabetes trial: five year follow-up data. ESC Clinical Trial and Registry update, Munich, August 27, 2012 (http://www.escardio.org/congresses/esc-2012/congress-reports/Pages/710-5-CARDia.aspx).
  6. Farkouh ME, Domanski M, Sleeper LA, et al. Strategies for multivessel revascularization in patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med 2012. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1211585.
  7. Hassan A, Newman A, Ko DT, et al. Increasing rates of angioplasty versus bypass surgery in Canada, 1994-2005. Am Heart J 2010;160:958-965CrossRef | Web of Science
  8. Frutkin AD, Lindsey JB, Mehta SK, et al. Drug-eluting stents and the use of percutaneous coronary intervention among patients with class I indications for coronary artery bypass surgery undergoing index revascularization: analysis from the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry). JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2009;2:614-621CrossRef | Web of Science
  9. Hillis LD, Smith PK, Anderson JL, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA guideline for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines: developed in collaboration with the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;58:e123-e210CrossRef | Web of Science
  10. Wijns W, Kolh P, Danchin N, et al. Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J2010;31:2501-2555CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

SOURCE:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1212278?query=OF

Related Research on this Open SOurce On-Line Scientific Journal include the following:

Outcomes in High Cardiovascular Risk Patients: Prasugrel (Effient) vs. Clopidogrel (Plavix); Aliskiren (Tekturna) added to ACE or added to ARB, Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/08/27/outcomes-in-high-cardiovascular-risk-patients-prasugrel-effient-vs-clopidogrel-plavix-aliskiren-tekturna-added-to-ace-or-added-to-arb/

To Stent or Not? A Critical Decision, Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/10/23/to-stent-or-not-a-critical-decision/

Positioning a Therapeutic Concept for Endogenous Augmentation of cEPCs — Therapeutic Indications for Macrovascular Disease: Coronary, Cerebrovascular and Peripheral, Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/08/29/positioning-a-therapeutic-concept-for-endogenous-augmentation-of-cepcs-therapeutic-indications-for-macrovascular-disease-coronary-cerebrovascular-and-peripheral/

New Definition of MI Unveiled, Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR)CT for Tagging Ischemia

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/08/27/new-definition-of-mi-unveiled-fractional-flow-reserve-ffrct-for-tagging-ischemia/

Foreseen changes in Guideline of Treatment of Cardiogenic Shock with Intra-aortic Balloon counterPulsation (IABP)

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/08/27/foreseen-changes-in-guideline-of-treatment-of-cardiogenic-shock-with-intra-aortic-balloon-counterpulsation-iabp/

New Drug-Eluting Stent Works Well in STEMI

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/08/22/new-drug-eluting-stent-works-well-in-stemi/

Read Full Post »

Positioning a Therapeutic Concept for Endogenous Augmentation of cEPCs — Therapeutic Indications for Macrovascular Disease: Coronary, Cerebrovascular and Peripheral

Author and Investigator Initiated Study: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Macrovascular Disease – Therapeutic Potential of cEPCs: Promise for CV Risk Reduction

  • Introduction
  • Biomarker Discovery – a comprehensive Post on this topic is forthcoming
  • What are our Contributions in the Domain of Macrovascular Disease – Therapeutic Potential of cEPCs: Reduction Methods for CV Risk
  • Postulates of Multiple Indications for the Method Presented: Positioning of a Therapeutic Concept for Endogenous Augmentation of cEPCs — Potential Therapeutic Indications for ElectEagle
  • A Three Component Method for Endogenous Augmentation of cEPCs — Macrovascular Diseases – Therapeutic Potential of cEPCs
  • The Promise of the Proposed Pharmacotherapy as a Method of CVD Risk Reduction
  • Emergence of Clinical Trial Results on Genous R stent — Healthy Endothelial Accelerated Lining Inhibits Neointimal Growth – (HEALING II)
  • Conclusions
  • References

Key words: coronary artery disease, circulating Endothelial Progenitor Cells (cEPCs), Endothelial Progenitor Cells (EPC), genetic engineering, CVD, CAD, CHF, myocardial infarction, neovascularization, vascular repair, “multimarker biomarker”, macrovascular disease, Endogenous Augmentation of cEPCs, Primary Endpoint, Secondary Endpoint.

Abbreviations used: ED, endothelial dysfunction; CAD, coronary artery disease; CVD, cardiovascular disease; cEPCs, circulating Endothelial Progenitor Cells; EPC, Endothelial Progenitor Cells; CHF, congestive heart failure; MI, myocardial infarction; MNC, mononuclear cells; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor; BMMNCs, bone marrow-derived mononuclear cells; G-CSF, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor; SDF, stromal derived factor; PB-MNCs, peripheral blood-mononuclear cells; EF, ejection fraction; PO2, partial pressure of oxygen; BMS, bare-metal stent; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft; DES, drug-eluting stent; GP, glycoprotein; LAD, left anterior descending; LCx, left circumflex; MI, myocardial infarction; RCA, right coronary artery; S/P , status-post stent implantation; MACE, Major Adverse Cardiac Events; TLR, target lesion revascularization; TVR, target vessel revascularization; TVF, target lesion vessel failure; eNOS, endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase 

Introduction

Cardinal to the study of reendothelialization and neovascularization is the mechanism of action (MOA) of EPCs. It requires exact biological phenotype of the true EPC and its MOA on the endothelium. Is the EPC autocrine or paracrine in its functional role? It is critical to understand this biological unknown for planning therapeutic approaches. Patients with unstable angina and no evidence of cardiac necrosis exhibited increased cEPCs. Systemic inflammation and recognized growth factors may play a role in peripheral mobilization of EPCs in patients with unstable anginal syndromes. Proportion of cEPCs in coronary ischemia, acute or chronic and its potential for restoring left ventricular dysfunction is still experimental. EC injury facilitates an accelerated development of atherosclerotic plaque which triggers cardiovascular risk factors where the magnitude of the endothelial dysfunction predicts the level of risk for a macrovascular event (George, 2004).

Diminished level of cEPCs is associated with risk factors for CVD implicating impaired endothelial repair as a contributor to a dynamic state of endothelial dysfunction. cEPCs is further reduced if multiple risk factors for CVD are present. Endothelial dysfunction is associated with cEPCs counts. It is only if cEPCs counts are low then endothelial dysfunction (ED) emerges. In the case of ED, the cells were more senescent compared with an age group without CVD and the risk factors involved with it. Impaired repair capacity due to reduced availability of cEPCs enhances the exposure to risk factors when injury occurs due to endothelial denudation, ischemic tissue, neointima build up and remodeling.

Mobilization and EPC-mediated neovascularization is critically regulated. Statins and physical exercise are stimulatory while risk factors for CAD are inhibitory in the modulation function of the level of cEPCs. Recruitment of cEPCs requires a coordinated sequence of adhesive and signaling events including adhesion and migration by integrins, chemoattraction of SDF-1/CXCR4 and differentiation of EC.

Bone-marrow derived cells in the circulating blood have an endothelial phenotype and peripheral blood can be cultured to generate ECs. cEPCs provide both diagnostic and prognostic information on CVD. EPCs are analyzed by their phenotypic markers, as discerned by fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) analysis as well as by their functional capability to produce colonies in culture conditions.

Kiernan (2006) identifies the two classes of therapeutic applications of cEPCs: (a) induction of angiogenesis and (b) large vessel repair. Transplantation of autologous EPCs over-expressing eNOS in injured vessels enhances the vasculoprotective properties of the reconstituted endothelium, leading to inhibition of neointimal hyperplasia. This cell-based gene therapy strategy may be useful in treatment of vascular disease. Stents coated in CD34 antibody which binds to the CD34 antigen of cEPCs have the capability to promote re-endothelialisation in minutes to hours. This mechanism seeks to restore the normal biology of the vessel wall rather than perpetuate the wall disruption as drug eluting stents are found recently to be implicated to cause both restenosis and thrombosis (Tung et al., 2006). Thus, cEPCs are of cardinal importance in healing cardiovascular injury. Identification of augmentation methods which are endogenous in nature, are systemic rather than local, as cell-based therapy is, and therefore, it will deliver systemic protective measures against atherosclerosis delaying angioplasty and potentially avoiding cell implantation or vascular engrafting.

Biomarker Discovery – a comprehensive Post on this topic is forthcoming

A comprehensive review of “Traditional” vs. “Novel” risk markers for cardiovascular disease was recently undertaken by Folsom et al., (2006) and the Editorial to this article by Lloyd-Jones and Tian (2006). Among the “Traditional” Risk Markers, they list: Age, Race, Sex, Total/HDL levels, Smoking Status, Diabetes, Systolic BP and Use of antihypertensive  drugs. The list of “Novel” Risk Markers is impressively longer and includes: CRP, Lp-PLA2, E-Selectin, Fibrinogen, PAI-1, Vitamin B6, D-dimer, ICAM-1, Homocysteine, IL-6, HSV-1 Antibody, CMV Antibody and Folate.

Only two risk factors make the top five list following the data adjustment to Age and /or All the Traditional Risk Factors, respectively, I would conclude that only the following two are of paramount importance for clinical application and drug therapy design.

Risk Factor RANKING

Risk Factor RANKING if

Data Adjusted to

AGE

Risk Factor RANKING if

Data Adjusted to

All “Traditional” Risk Factors

1 Chlamydia Intracellular adhesion molecule
2 Lp-PLA2 lipoprotein-associatedphospholipase A2 Cytomegalovirus
3 Tisshe Plasminogen Activator D-Dimer
4 Tissue inhibitor of Metalloproteinase1 IL-6
5 Intracellular adhesion molecule Tissue inhibitor of Metalloproteinase1

In light of these results, chiefly edified by Folsom et al., (2006)  conclusion that: “Based on the totality of evidence, however, CRP level does not emerge as a clinically useful addition to basic risk factor assessment for identifying patients at risk of a first CHD event.” (Folsom, 2006, 1372).

What are our Contributions in the Domain of

Macrovascular Disease – Therapeutic Potential of cEPCs: Reduction Methods for CV Risk

(a) This is the first paper to look at cEPCs from two academic schools of thought.  One, represented by the review article of Dzau et al., Hypertension, 2005 with 122 references which treats cEPCs from two perspectives: Vascular Biology and Molecular Cardiology. The other, is the review article by Lapidot & Petit, Experimental Hematology, 2002 with 86 references which treats cEPCs as stem cells and covers the research in Immunology and in Hematology, cEPCs is circulating in our blood, it is a stem cell! The overlap between the references N=122 in Dzau and N=86 in Lapidot & Petit is zero. These two schools do not cite the findings of the other school. That happens when both schools (Vascular Biology/Molecular Cardiology) and (Immunology/Hematology), BOTH schools are researching the same biologic phenomenon, i.e., one circulating EPC. We are the first to put together in one paper the two schools in the context of cEPCs. The pathophysiology of cECs, cEPCs and Trans-Endothelium Cell Migration in one location.

(b) Table of content of Part I yielded a theoretical treatment of cEPCs not in existence anywhere.  We defined for the first time that the Clinical Frontier for cEPCs is of quadruple nature: (Vascular Biology/Molecular Cardiology) PLUS (Immunology/Hematology). We made the statement that the Clinical Frontier has 20 Future Fast Acting Therapy modality currently under research. We cited the limitation of exogenous methods for augmentation of cEPCs as a scientifically derived justification for our selection of an endogenous augmentation method.

Upon selection of the endogenous method, we specified three components:

–   inhibition of ET-1

–   induction of eNOS

–   stimulation of PPAR-gamma

The proposed combination drug therapy yielded a new multimarker biomarker for reduction of CVD risk for macrovascular events, called the ElectEagle Version I. We specified the potential indications for the ElectEagle Version I method in terms of cardiovascular disease and co-morbidity with other endothelial dysfunction derived disease.

Method name:            ElectEagle

E.L.E.C.T.

E – Efficient

L – Ligands of cEPCs

E – Elective and Individualized Diagnosis and Therapy

C – Cardiovascular diseases & secondary sequalea

T – Treatment adjustable by three agents

E.A.G.L.E.

E – Endogenous

A – Augmentation

G – Gamma-PPAReceptor

L – Ligand occupied ETA and ETA-ETB – binding Nitric Oxide

E – EPCs fast generator

ElectEaglestands for an Efficient Ligands of cEPCs Elective and Individualized Diagnosis and Therapy for Cardiovascular diseases & secondary vascular sequalea, using Treatment adjustable by three agents. It is a method for Endogenous Augmentation of circulating EPCs by using Gamma-PPAR agonists, inhibitors of Ligand occupied ETA and ETA-ETB and agonist for binding Nitric Oxide and induce eNOS.

A Three Component Method for Endogenous Augmentation of cEPCs — Macrovascular Diseases – Therapeutic Potential of cEPCs

Observations on Intellectual Property Development For an Unrecognized Future Fast Acting Therapy for Patients at High Risk for Macrovascular events

ElectEagle represents a discovery of a novel “multimarker biomarker” for cardiovascular disease that innovates on four counts.

First, it proposes new therapeutic indications for acceptable drugs.

Second, it defines a specific combination of therapeutic agents, thus, it put forth a proprietary drug combination.

Third, it targets receptor systems that have not been addressed in the context of cEPCs augmentation methods. Chiefly, modulation of the following three-targeted receptor systems: (a) inhibition of ET-1, ETA and ETA-ETB receptors by antagonists (b) induction of eNOS, by agonists and NO stimulation and (c) upregulation of PPAReceptor-gamma by agonists (TZD). While (b) and (c) are implicated as having favorable effects of cEPCs count, each exerting its effect by a different pathway, it is suggested in this project that (a) might be identify to be the more powerful of the three markers. Our method, ElectEagleis the FIRST to postulate the following: (1) time concentration dependence on eNOS reuptake (2) dose concentration dependence on NO production (3) time and dose concentration dependence for ET-1, ETA and ETA-ETB inhibition, and (4) dose concentration dependence on PPAReceptor-gamma. Points First, Second and Third are covered in Part II where a special focus is placed on ET-1, ETA and ETA-ETB receptors.

Fourth, ElectEagle proposes a platform with triple modes of delivery and use of the test, as described in Part III. The triple modes are as follows: (A) an automated platform from a centralized lab with integration to Lab’s information management system. (B) a point-of-care testing device with appropriate display of test results (small benchtop analyzers in PCP office). (C) a device used for home monitoring of analytes (the hand-held device facilitates rapid read of scores and their translation to drug concentration of each of the three therapeutic agents, with computation of the three drug concentrations done by the device. Thus, it offers quicker optimization of treatment.  ElectEagle is the FIRST to propose a CVD patient kit, hand-held device, which calculates on demand an adjustable therapeutic regimen as a function of cEPCs count biomarker. In this regard, a similarity to the pump, in management of blood sugar in DM patients, exists. Since there is a high co-morbidity between DM and CVD, our methods, ElectEagle may eventually become a targeted therapy for the DM Type 2 population.

Postulates of Multiple Indications for the Method Presented: Positioning of a Therapeutic Concept for Endogenous Augmentation of cEPCs — Potential Therapeutic Indications for ElectEagle

ElectEagle can become the drug therapy of choice for the following indications:

  •      CAD patients
  •      Endothelial Dysfunction in DM patients with or without Erectile Dysfunction
  •      Atherosclerosis patients: Arteries and or veins
  •      pre-stenting treatment phase
  •      post-stenting treatment phase
  •      if stent is a Bare Metal stent (BMS)
  •      if stent is Drug Eluting stent (DES)
  •      if stent is EPC antibody coated (the ElectEagle method increase cEPCs generation in vitro) so availability of cEPCs is increased
  •      post CABG patients (the ElectEagle enhances healing by endogenous augmentation of cEPCs)
  •      target sub segments of CVD patients on blood thinner drugs (the ElectEagle does not require treatment with antiplatelet agents, it is suitable for all patients on Coumadin. This population have a counter indication for antiplatelet agents which is a follow up treatment after stent implantation for 30 days, with stent-eluting long term regimen of antiplatelet agents, 6 months and in some cases indefinitely (Tung, 2006).
  •      ElectEagle is based on systemic therapeutics (versus the localized stent solution requiring multiple and even overlapping stents)
  •      ElectEagle will be having potential in three contexts

(a) Coronary disease

(b) Periphery vascular disease

(c) Cerebrovascular

Comparative analysis of endogenous and exogenous cEPCs augmentation methods:

A. Endogenous augmentation method properties:

  •         temporal – while drug therapy in use – drug action is interruptible
  •         time concentration on eNOS reuptake
  •         dose concentration on NO production
  •         time and dose concentration manner for ETB inhibition
  •         dose concentration on PPAR-gamma

B.  Cell-based and other exogenous methods

  • permanent colonization till apoptosis if no repeated attempts of re-transfer,
  • re-implantation as the protocol usually has several stages

The Promise of the Proposed Pharmacotherapy as a Method of CVD Risk Reduction

It is expected that ElectEagle will be resulting in potential delay of stenting implantation. Patients that are target for stenting may benefit form ElectEagle that will facilitate and accelerate healing after the stent is in place. EPC antibody coated stents will work if and only if the patient has more that just low cEPCs, most patient undergoing stenting tend to have low level of cEPC. The ElectEagle method can be coupled with that type of new stents, called Genous, now in clinical trials (HEALING II, III). These stents enhance the body ability in mobilization of cEPCs, only. However, if the initial population of cEPCs is low, an endogenous fast acting cell augmentation method is needed for pretreatment before the PCI procedure with Genous is scheduled.

Emergence of Clinical Trial Results on Genous R stent — Healthy Endothelial Accelerated Lining Inhibits Neointimal Growth – (HEALING II)

Latest publications on HEALING II – Clinical Trial of EPC coated stent

Genous R stent
n=63
Healthy Endothelial Accelerated Lining Inhibits Neointimal Growth – II

S Silber et al; 12 Month Outcomes of the e-HEALING (Healthy Endothelial Accelerated Lining Inhibits Neointimal Growth) Worldwide Registry; EuroIntervention 2011;6:819-825

P Damman et al; Coronary Stenting With the Genous Bio-engineered R stent in Elderly Patients – 12-month Outcomes From the e-HEALING Registry; Circulation Journal 2011;75(11):2590-2597

P Damman et al; Twelve-month Outcomes After Coronary Stenting With the Genous Bio-Engineered R Stent in Diabetic Patients from the e-HEALING Registry; Journal of Interventional Cardiology 2011;24(4):285-94 

J Aoki et al; Endothelial progenitor cell capture by stents coated with antibody against CD34: the HEALING-FIM (Healthy Endothelial Accelerated Lining Inhibits Neointimal Growth-First In Man) Registry.J.Am.Coll.Cardiol. 2005 May 17;45(10):1574-9

REFERENCES

Aicher A, Heeschen C, Mildner-Rihm C, Urbich C, Ihling C, Technau- Ihling K, Zeiher AM, Dimmeler S, (2003). Essential role of endothelial nitric oxide synthase for mobilization of stem cell and progenitor cells. Nat Med., 9:1370-1376.

Anderson T. (1999). Assessment of treatment of endothelial dysfunction. J Am Coll of Cardiology, 34: 631- 8.

Andrew C. Li, Binder, CJ, Gutierrez, A, Brown, KK, Plotkin, CR, Pattison, JW, Valledor, AF, Davis, RA, Willson, TM, Witztum, JL, Palinski, W, Glass, CK. (2004). Differential inhibition of macrophage foam-cell formation and atherosclerosis in mice by PPAR-alpha, Beta/delta, and gamma. J. Clin. Invest. 114:1564-1576

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/18730

Aoki, J., Serruys, P.W., van Beusekom, H., Ong, A.T., McFadden, E.P., Sianos, G., et al. (2005). Endothelial progenitor cell capture by stents coated with antibody against CD34: the HEALING-FIM (Healthy Endothelial Accelerated Lining Inhibits Neointimal Growth-First In Man) Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 45 (10), 1574–1579.

Asahara T, Murohara T, Sullivan A, Silver M, van der Zee R, Li T, Witzenbichler B, Schatterman G, and Isner JM (1997). Isolation of putative progenitor endothelial cells for angiogenesis. Science 275: 964–967.

Asahara T, Masuda H, Takahashi T, Kalka C, Pastore C, Silver M, Kearne M, Magner M, Isner JM. (1999). Bone marrow origin of endothelial progenitor cells responsible for postnatal vasculogenesis in physiological and pathological neovascularization. Circ Res. 85:221–228.

Askari AT, Unzek S, Popovic ZB, Goldman CK, Forudi F, Kiedrowski M, Rovner A, Ellis SG, Thomas JD, DiCorleto PE, Topol EJ, Penn MS.(2003). Effect of stromal cell-derived factor 1 on stem cell homing and tissue regeneration in ischemic cardiomyopathy. Lancet, 362:697–703.

Assmus B, Schachlinger V, Teupe C, Britten M, Lehmann R, Dobert N, Grunwald F, Aicher A, Urbich C, Martin H, Hoelzer D, Dimmeler S, Zeiher AM, (2002). Transplantation of progenitor cells and regeneration enhancement in acute myocardial infarction (TOPCARE-AMI). Circulation, 106:3009 –3017

Bennett MR, O’Sullivan MO (2001). Mechanisms of angioplasty and stent restenosis: implications for design of rational therapy. Pharmacol Ther., 91:149 –166.

Ben-Shoshan, J and George, J. (2006). Endothelial progenitor cells as therapeutic vectors in cardiovascular disorders: from experimental models to human trials  Pharmacology Therapeutics (impact factor: 8.9). 08/2007; 115(1):25-36.

Bhattacharya V, Shi Q, Ishida A, Sauvage LR, Hammond WP, Wu MH.(2000). Administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor enhances endothelialization and microvessel formation in small caliber synthetic vascular grafts. J Vasc Surg., 32:116 –123.

Bonetti PO, et al. (2002). Reactive hyperemia peripheral arterial tonometry, a novel non-invasive index of peripheral vascular function, is attenuated in patients with coronary endothelial dysfunction. Circulation, 106:Suppl II:579.

Bonetti PO, et al. (2003). Enhanced external counterpulsation improves endothelial function in patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease. J Am Coll of Cardiology, 41:1761-8.

Britten MB, Abolmaali ND, Assmus B, Lehman R, Honold J, Schmitt J, Vogl TJ, Martin H, Schachinger V, Dimmeler S, Zeiher AM, (2003). Infarct remodeling after intracoronary progenitor cell treatment in patients with acute myocardial infarction (TOPCARE-AMI): mechanistic insights from serial contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Circulation, 108:2212–2218.

Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation in Type 2 Diabetics (BARI 2D) ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00006305, 2000-2007

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0805796

Caplice NM, Bunch TJ, Stalboerger PG, Wang S, Simper D, Miller DV, Russell SJ, Litzow MR, Edwards WD. (2003). Smooth muscle cells in human coronary atherosclerosis can originate from cells administered at marrow transplantation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 100: 4754–4759.

Chadwick , D.(2006) OrbusNeich’s Genous Bioengineered R-stent . Cath Lab Digest, 14 (1), 20-26

Cho H-J, Kim H-S, Lee M-M, Kim D-H, Yang H-J, Hur J, Hwang K-K, Oh S, Choi Y-J, Chae I-H, Oh, B-H, Choi Y-S, Walsh K, Park Y-B. (2003).  Mobilized endothelial progenitor cells by granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor accelerate reendothelialization and reduce vascular inflammation after intravascular radiation. Circulation, 108:2918 –2925.

Choi J-H, Kim KL, Huh W, Kim B, Byun J, Suh W, Sung J, Jeon E-S, Oh H-Y, Kim D-K, (2004). Decreased number and impaired angiogenic function of endothelial progenitors in patients with chronic renal failure. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol.,24:1246 –1252.

Cinamon G, Shinder V, Alon R (2001) Shear forces promote lymphocyte migration across vascular endothelium bearing apical chemokines. Nature Immunology, 2:515

Dimmeler S, Aicher A, Vasa M, Mildner-Rihm C, Adler K, Tiemann M, Rutten H, Fichtlscherer S, Martin H, Zeiher AM, (2001). HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) increase endothelial progenitor cells via the PI3-kinase/Akt pathway. J Clin Invest., 108:391–397.

Dimmeler S and Zeiher AM, (2004). Vascular repair by circulating endothelial progenitor cells: the missing link in atherosclerosis. J Mol Med. 82:671– 677.

Drexler H and Hornig B, (1999). Endothelial dysfunction in human disease. J Mol Cell Cardiol., 31:51– 60.

Dzau VJ, Braun-Dullaeus RC, Sedding DG. (2002). Vascular proliferation and atherosclerosis: new perspectives and therapeutic strategies. Nat Med.,  8:1249 –1256.

Dzau, VJ, Gnecchi, M, Pachori, AS, Morello F, Melo, LG.(2005).Therapeutic Potential of Endothelial Progenitor Cells in Cardiovascular Diseases.Hypertension,246:7-18.

Edelberg JM, Tang L, Hattori K, Lyden D, Rafii. (2002). Young adult bone marrow-derived endothelial precursor cells restore aging-impaired cardiac angiogenic function. Circ Res., 90:e89–e93.

Endemann DH and Schiffrin EL, (2004). Endothelial dysfunction. J Am Soc Nephrol., 15:1983–1992.

Fadini, G, Avogaro A, Agostini C. (2004), Unambiguous Definition of Endothelial Progenitor Cells. Electronic Letter to the Editor of Heart in reference to article by Eizawa, T, Ikeda U, et al. Decreasing in circulating endothelial progenitor cells in patients with stable CAD, Heart, 2004; 90: 685-686,

http://heart.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/90/6/685#310  retrieved on 6/26/2006 Link not found 5/1/2013

Fernandez-Aviles F, San Roman JA, Garcıa-Frade J, Fernandez ME, Penarrubia MJ, de la Fuente Luis, Gomez-Bueno M, Cantalapiedra A, Fernandez J, Gutierrez O, Sanchez PL, Hernandez C, Sanz R, Garcıa- Sancho J, Sa´nchez A, (2004). Experimental and clinical regenerative capability of human bone marrow cells after myocardial infarction. Circ Res., 95:742–748.

Folsom, A.R. Chambless, L.E. Ballantyne, C.M. Coresh, J. Heiss, G. Wu, K.K. Boerwinkle, E. Mosley, T.H. Sorlie, P. Diao, G. Sharrett, A.R. (2006). An Assessment of Incremental Coronary Risk Prediction Using C-Reactive Protein and Other Novel Risk Markers – The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study. Arch Intern. Med. 166, 1368-1373.

Fuujiyama S, Amano K, Uehira K, Yoshida N, Nishiwaki Y, Nozawa Y,  Jin D, Takai S, Miyazaki M, Egashira K, Imada T, Iwasaka T, Matsubara H, (2003). Bone marrow monocyte lineage cells adhere on injured endothelium in a monocyte chemoattractant protein-1-dependent manner and accelerate reendothelialization as endothelial progenitor cells. Circ Res., 93:980-989.

George F, Brisson C, Poncelet P, Laurent JC, Massot O, Arnoux D, Ambrosi P, Klein-Soyer C, Cazenave JP, and Sampol J (1992). Rapid isolation of human endothelial cells from whole blood using S-Endo 1 monoclonal antibody coupled to immunomagnetic beads: demonstration of endothelial injury after angioplasty.Thromb Haemost, 67:147–153.

George J, Herz I, Goldstein E, Abashidze S, Deutch V, Finkelstein A, Michowitz Y, Miller H, Keren G.(2003). Number and adhesive properties of circulating endothelial progenitor cells in patients with in-stent restenosis. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol., 23:e57– e60.

George J, Goldstein E, Abashidze S, Deutsch V, Shmilovich H, Finkelstein A, Herz I, Miller H, Keren G., (2004). Circulating endothelial progenitor cells in patients with unstable angina: association with systemic inflammation. Eur Heart J., 25:1003–1008.

George, J., Goldstein, E., Abashidze, S., Wexler, D., Hamed, S., Shmilovich, H., et al. (2005). Erythropoietin promotes endothelial progenitor cell proliferative and adhesive properties in a PI 3-kinase-dependent manner. Cardiovasc Res 68(2), 299-306.

George J, Shmilovich H, Deutsch V, Miller H, Keren G, Roth A. (2006). Comparative Analysis of Methods for Assessment of Circulating Endothelial Progenitor Cells, Tissue Engineering 12 (2) 331-335

Gerhard-Herman M, et al. (2002). Assessment of endothelial function (nitric oxide) at the tip of a finger. Circulation, 106:Suppl II:170.

Gill M, Dias S, Hattori K, Rivera ML, Hicklin D, Witte L, Girardi L, Yurt R, Himel H, Rafii S, (2001). Vascular trauma induces rapid but transient mobilization of VEGFR2/AC133 endothelial precursor cells. Circ Res., 88:167–174.

Goon, P.K.Y. Lip G.Y.H, Boos, CJ, Stonelake, PS, Blann, AD. (2006). Circulating Endothelial Cells, Endothelial Progenitor Cells, and Endothelial Microparticles in Cancer, Neoplasia, 8:79-88.

Griese DP, Ehsan A, Melo LG, Kong D, Zhang L, Mann MJ, Pratt RE, Mulligan RC, Dzau VJ, (2003). Isolation and transplantation of autologous circulating endothelial cells into denuded vessels and prosthetic grafts: implications for cell-based vascular therapy. Circulation, 108: 2710–2715.

Heeschen C, Aicher A, Lehmann R, Fichtlscherer S, Vasa M, Urbich C, Mildner-Rihm C, Martin H, Zeiher AM, Dimmeler, (2003). Erythropoietin is a potent physiological stimulus for endothelial progenitor cell mobilization. Blood, 102:1340 –1346.

Heeschen C, Lehman R, Honold J, Assmus B, Aicher A, Walter DH, Martin H, Zeiher AM, Dimmeler S. (2004). Profoundly reduced neovascularization capacity of bone marrow mononuclear cells derived from patients with chronic ischemic heart disease.Circulation, 109:1615–1622.

Heissig B, Hattori K, Dias S, Friedrich M, Ferris B, Hackett NR, Crystal RG, Besmer P, Lyden D, Moore MA, Werb Z, Rafii S., (2002). Recruitment of stem and progenitor cells from the bone marrow niche requires MMP-9 mediated release of kit-ligand. Cell;109: 625-637.

Hiasa K, Ishibashi M, Ohtani K, Inoue S, Zhao Q, Kitamoto S, Sata M, Ichiki T, Takeshita A, Egashira K. Gene transfer of stromal cell-derived factor 1 enhances ischemic vasculogenesis and angiogenesis via vascular endothelial growth factor/endothelial nitric oxide synthaserelated pathway: next generation chemokine therapy for therapeutic neovascularization. Circulation, 109:2454 –2461.

Hill JM, Zalos G, Halcox JPG, Schenke WH, Waclawin MA, Quyyumi A, Finkel T. (2003). Circulating endothelial progenitor cells, vascular function and cardiovascular risk. N Engl J Med., 348:593– 600.

Hillebrands J-L, Klatter FA, van DijK WD, Rozing J. (2003). Bone marrow does not contribute substantially to endothelial-cell replacement in transplant arteriosclerosis.Nat Med., 8:194 –195.

Hu Y, Davison F, Zhan Z, Xu Q. (2003). Endothelial replacement and angiogenesis in arteriosclerotic lesions of allografts are contributed by circulating progenitor cells.Circulation, 108:3122–3127.

Hur, J., Yoon, C.H., Kim, H.S., Choi, J.H., Kang, H.J., Hwang, K.K., et al. (2004). Characterization of two types of endothelial progenitor cells and their different contributions to neovasculogenesis. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 24(2), 288–293.

Imanishi, T., Hano, T. & Nishio, I. (2005) Estrogen reduces endothelial progenitor cell senescence through augmentation of telomerase activity. J Hypertens 23(9):1699-1706.

Iwaguro H, Yamaguchi J, Kalka C, Murasawa S, Masuda H, Hayashi S, Silver M, Li T, Isner JM, Asahara T, (2002). Endothelial progenitor cell vascular endothelial growth factor gene transfer for vascular regeneration. Circulation, 105:732–738.

Kalka C, Tehrani H, Laudernberg B, Vale P, Isner JM, Asahara T, Symes JF, (2000a). Mobilization of endothelial progenitor cells following gene therapy with VEGF165 in patients with inoperable coronary disease. Ann Thorac Surg., 70:829–834.

Kalka C, Masuda H, Takahashi T, Gordon R, Tepper O, Gravereaux E, Pieczek A, Iwaguro H, Hayashi S-I, Isner JM, Asahara T (2000b). Vascular endothelial growth factor165 gene transfer augments circulating endothelial progenitor cells in human subjects. Circ Res., 86:1198 –1202.

Kalka C, Masuda H, Takahashi T, Kalka-Moll WM, Silver M, Kearney M, Li T, Isner JM, Asahara T, (2000c). Transplantation of ex vivo expanded endothelial progenitor cells for therapeutic neovascularization. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 97:3422–3427.

Kang H-J, Kim H-S, Zhang S-Y, Park K-W, Cho H-J, Koo B-K, Kim Y-J, Lee DS, Sohn D-W, Han K-S, Oh B-H, Lee M-M, Park Y-B, (2004). Effects of intracoronary infusion of peripheral blood stem cells mobilized with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor on left ventrricular systolic function and restenosis after coronary stenting in myocardial infarction: the MAGIC cell randomized clinical trial. Lancet, 363:751–756.

Kawamoto A, Gwon H-C, Iwaguro H, Yamaguchi J, Uchida S, Masuda H, Silver M, Ma H, Kearney M, Isner JM, Asahara T, (2001). Therapeutic potential of ex vivo expanded endothelial progenitor cells for myocardial ischemia. Circulation, 103:634–637.

Khan SS, Solomon MA, and McCoy JP Jr, (2005). Detection of circulating-  endothelial cells and endothelial progenitor cells by flow cytometry. Cytometry B Clin Cytom64:1–8.

Kiernan, T.(2006). Endothelial progenitor cells in 2006 – Where are we now? http://www.irishheart.ie/iopen24/catalog/pub/Heartwise/2006/Spring/endothelial.pdf retrieved 6/22/2006. Link not found 5/1/2013

Kim, DH, Leu, HB, Ott, HC & Taylor, DO, Bertolini, F, Mancuso, P & Kerbel, RS, Boos, CJ, Goon, PKY, Lip, GYH, (2005). Multiple comments – Correspondence to the Editor on Circulating Endothelial Progenitor Cells. NEJM, 353:24, 2613-2616

Kleinman, ME, Blei, F, Gurtner, GC, (2005). Circulating Endothelial Progenitor Cells and Vascular Anomalies, Lymphatic Research and Biology, 3;4: 234-239.

Kocher AA, Schuster MD, Szabolcs MJ, Burkhoff D, Wang J, Homma S, Edwards NM, Itescu S. (2001). Neovascularization of ischemic myocardium by human bone-marrow-derived angioblasts prevents cardiomyocyte apoptosis, reduces remodeling and improves cardiac function. Nat Med., 7:430–436.

Kong D, Melo LG, Gnecchi M, Zhang L, Mostoslavski G, Liew CC, Pratt RE, Dzau VJ. (2004a). Cytokine-induced mobilization of circulating endothelial progenitor cells enhances repair of injured arteries. Circulation, 110:2039 –2046.

Kong D, Melo LG, Mangi AA, Zhang L, Lopez-Ilasaca M, Perrella MA, Liew CC, Pratt RE, Dzau VJ, (2004b). Enhanced inhibition of neointimal hyperplasia by genetically engineered endothelial progenitor cells. Circulation, 109:1769 –1775.

Kuvin JT, et al. (2003a). Assessment of peripheral vascular endothelial function with finger arterial pulse wave amplitude. Am Heart J, 146:168-74.

Kuvin JT, et al. (2003b). Peripheral arterial tonometry during hyperemia is blunted in patients with coronary artery disease. J Am Coll of Cardiology, 41:Suppl:269A.

Lapidot T, and Petit, I (2002) Current understanding of stem cell mobilization: The roles of chemokines, proteolytic enzymes, adhesion molecules, cytokines, and stromal cells. Experimental Hematology, 30:973–98

Laufs U, Werner N, Link A, Endres M, Wassmann S, Jurgens K, Miche E, Bohm M, and Nickenig G (2004). Physical training increases endothelial progenitor cells, inhibits neointima formation, and enhances angiogenesis. Circulation 109: 220–226.

Llevadot J, Murasawa S, Kureishi Y, Uchida S, Masuda H, Kawamoto A, Walsh K, Isner JM, Asahara T, (2001). HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor mobilizes bone marrow-derived endothelial progenitor cells. J Clin Invest., 108:399–405.

Lloyd-Jones, D. and Tian, L. (2006). Predicting Cardiovascular Risk, So What Do We Do Now?. Arch Intern. Med, 166, 1342-1343.

Loomans CJM, de Koening EJP, Staal FJT, Rookmaaker MB, Verseyden C, de Boer HC, Verhaar MC, Braam B, Rebelink TJ, van Zonneveld A-J. (2004). Endothelial progenitor cell dysfunction. A novel concept in the pathogenesis of vascular complications of type I diabetes. Diabetes, 53:195–199.

Losordo DW, Isner JM, Diaz-Sandoval LJ, (2003). Endothelial Recovery. The next target in restenosis prevention. Circulation, 107:2635–2637.

Lusis, A.J. (2000). Atherosclerosis. Nature 407(6801), 233–241. DIGITAL LINK N/A

Massa M, Rosti V, Ferrario M, Campanelli R, Ramajoli, Rosso R, De Ferrari GM, Ferlini M, Goffredo L, Bertoletti A, Klersy C, Pecci A, Moratti R, Tavazzi, (2005). Increased circulating hematopoietic and endothelial progenitor cells in the early phase of acute myocardial infarction. Blood,105:199 –206.

Orlic D, Kajstura J, Chimenti S, Limana F, Jakoniuk I, Quaini F, Nadal-Ginard B, Bodine DM, Leri A, Anversa P. (2001). Mobilized bone marrow cells repair the infarcted heart, improving function and survival. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 98:10344 –10349.

Peichev M, Naiyer AJ, Pereira D, Zhu Z, Lane WJ, Williams M, Oz MC, Hicklin DJ, Witte L, Moore MA, and Rafii S (2000). Expression of VEGFR-2 and AC133 by circulating human CD34+ cells identifies a population of functional endothelial precursors. Blood 95: 952–958.

Perin EC, Dohmann HFR, Borojevic R, Silva SA, Sousa AL, Mesquita CT, Rossi MI, Carvalho AC, Dutra HS, Dohmann HJ, Silva GV, Belem L, Vivacqua R, Rangel FO, Esporcatte R, Geng YJ, Vaughn WK, Assad JA, Mesquita ET, Willerson JT, (2003). Transendocardial, autologous bone marrow cell transplantation for severe, chronic ischemic heart failure. Circulation, 107:2294 –2302.

Powell TM, Paul JD, Hill JM, Thompson M, Benjamin M, Rodrigo M, McCoy JP, Read EJ, Khuu HM, (2005). Leitman SF, Finkel T, Cannon RO III. Granulocyte colony stimulating factor mobilizes functional endothelial progenitor cells in patients with coronary artery disease. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol., 25:1– 6.

Rafii S, Lyden D (2003). Therapeutic stem and progenitor cell transplantation for organ vascularisation and regeneration. Nat Med 9: 702–712.

Rauscher FM, Goldschmidt-Clermont PJ, Davis BH, Wang T, Gregg D, Ramaswami P, Pippen AM, Annex BH, Dong C, Taylor DA, (2003). Aging, progenitor cell exhaustion, and atherosclerosis. Circulation, 108:457–463.

Ross R. (1999). Atherosclerosis – An inflammatory disease. N Engl J Med., 340:115–126.

Rubanyi GM. (1993). The role of endothelium in cardiovascular homeostasis and diseases. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol., 22(Suppl):S1–S4.

Sata M, Saiura A, Kunisato A, Tojo A, Okada S, Tokuhisa T, Hirai H, Makuuchi M, Hirata Y, Nagai R. (2002). Hematopoietic stem cells differentiate into vascular cells that participate in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis. Nat Med., 8:403– 409.

Schachinger V, Assmus B, Britten MB, Honold J, Lehman R, Teupe C, Abolmaali ND, Vogt TJ, Hofmann WK, Martin H, Dimmeler S, Zeiher AM, (2004). Transplantation of progenitor cells and regeneration enhancement in acute myocardial infarction: final one-year results of the TOPCARE-AMI trial. J Am Coll Cardiol., 44:1690 –1699.

Schatteman GC, Hanlon HD, Jiao C, Dodds SG, Christy BA. (2000). Blood derived angioblasts accelerate blood flow restoration in diabetic mice. J Clin Invest., 106:571–578.

Scheubel RJ, Zorn H, Rolf-Edgar S, Kuss O, Morawietz, Holtz J, Simm A. (2003). Age-dependent depression in circulating endothelial progenitor cells in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. J Am Col Cardiol., 42:2073–2080.

Segal, M.S., Shah, R., Afzal, A., Perrault, C.M., Chang, K., Schuler, A., et al. (2006). Nitric oxide cytoskeletal-induced alterations reverse the endothelial progenitor cell migratory defect associated with diabetes. Diabetes 55(1), 102-109

Shi Q, Raffi, Wu MH, Wijelath ES, Yu C, Ishida A, Fujita Y, Kothari S, Mohle R, Sauvage LR, Moore MAS, Storb RF, Hammond WP. (1998). Evidence of circulating bone-marrow derived endothelial cells. Blood, 92:362–367.

Shi Q, Bhattacharya V, Hong-De Wu M, Sauvage LR. (2002). Utilizing granulocyte colony-stimulating factor to enhance vascular graft endothelialization from circulating blood cells. Ann Vasc Surg., 16:314 –320.

Shintani S, Murohara T, Ikeda H, Ueni T, Honma T, Katoh A, Sasaki K, Shimada T, Oike Y, Imaizumi T, (2001). Mobilization of endothelial progenitor cells in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Circulation, 103:2776 –2779.

Shirota, T., Yasui, H., Shimokawa, H. & Matsuda, T. (2003). Fabrication of endothelial progenitor cell (EPC)-seeded intravascular stent devices and in vitro endothelialization on hybrid vascular tissue. Biomaterials 24(13), 2295–2302.

Simper D, Wang S, Deb A, Holmes D, McGregor C, Frantz R, Kushawa SS, Caplice NM, (2003). Endothelial progenitor cells are decreased in blood of cardiac allograft patients with vasculopathy and endothelial cells of non cardiac origin are enriched in transplant atherosclerosis. Circulation, 107:143–149.

Spyridopoulos I, Haendeler J, Urbich C, Brummendorf TH, Oh H, Schneider MD, Zeiher AM, Dimmeler S, (2004). Statins enhance migratory capacity by upregulation of the telomere repeat-binding factor TRF2 in endothelial progenitor cells. Circulation, 110:3136 –3142.

Stamm C, Westphal B, Kleine H-D, Petzsch M, Kittner C, Klinge H, Schumichen C, Nienaber CA, Freund M, Steinhoff G, (2003). Autologous bonemarrow transplantation for myocardial regeneration. Lancet, 361:45–46.

Strauer BE, Brehm M, Zeus T, Kostering M, Hernandez A, Sorg RV, Kogler G, Wernet P, (2002). Repair of infarcted myocardium by autologous intracoronary mononuclear bone marrow cell transplantation in humans. Circulation, 106:1913–1918.

Strehlow K, Werner N, Berweiler J, Link A, Dirnagl U, Priller J, Laufs K, Ghaeni L, Milosevic M, Bohm M, Nickenig G, (2003). Estrogen increases bone-marrow derived endothelial progenitor cell production and diminishes neointima formation.Circulation, 107:3059 –3065.

Takahashi T, Kalka C, Masuda H, Chen D, Silver M, Kearney M, Magner M, Isner JM, Asahara T, (1999). Ischemia- and cytokine-induced mobilization of bone-marrow-derived endothelial progenitor cells for neovascularization. Nat Med., 5:434–438.

Tepper OM, Galiano RD, Capla JM, Kalka C, Gagne PJ, Jacobwotiz GR, Levine JP, Gurtner GC. (2002). Human endothelial progenitor cells from type II diabetes exhibit impaired proliferation, adhesion, and incorporation into vascular structures.Circulation, 106:2781–2786.

Tse HF, Kwong YL, Chan JK, Lo G, Ho CL, and Lau CP (2003). Angiogenesis in ischaemic myocardium by intramyocardial autologous bone genesis marrow mononuclear cell implantation. Lancet 361: 47–49.

Tung, R, Kaul, S, Diamond, GA, Shah, PK (2006). Drug-Eluting Stents for the Management of Restenosis: A Critical Appraisal of the Evidence. Annals of Internal Medicine, 144;12: 913-919.

Valenzuela-Fernandez A, Planchenault T, Baleux F, et al. (2002) Leukocyte elastase negatively regulates stromal cell-derived factor-1 (SDF)/CXCR4 binding and functions by amino-terminal processing of SDF-1 and CXCR4.  J Biol Chem 277:156

Valgimigli M, Rigolin GM, Fucili A, Della Porta M, Soukhomovskaia O, Malagutti P, Bugli AM, Bragottu LZ, Francolini G, Mauro E, Castoldi G, Ferrari R, (2004). CD34 and endothelial progenitor cells in patients with various degrees of congestive heart failure. Circulation, 110:1209–1212.

Vasa M, Fichtlscherer S, Adler K, Aicher A, Martin H, Zeiher AM, Dimmeler S. (2001a). Increase in circulating endothelial progenitor cells by statin therapy in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Circulation, 103:2885–2890.

Vasa M, Fichtlscherer S, Aicher A, Adler K, Urbich C, Martin H, Zeiher AM, Dimmeler S. (2001b). Number and migratory activity of circulating endothelial progenitor cells inversely correlates with risk factors for coronary artery disease. Circ Res., 89:e1– e7.

Vasan, RS, (2006). Biomarkers of Cardiovascular Disease: Molecular Basis and Practical Considerations, Circulation, 113:2335-2362.

Verma S, Kukiszewski MA, Li S-H, Szmitko PE, Zucco L, Wang C-H, Badiwala MV, Mickle DAG, Weisel RD, Fedak PWM, Stewart DJ, Kutrik MJB, (2004). C-reactive protein attenuates endothelial progenitor cell survival, differentiation, and function.Circulation, 109:r91–r100.

Verma, S. and Marsden, P.A. (2005). Nitric Oxide-Eluting Polyurethanes – Vascular Grafts of the Future? New England Journal Medicine, 353 (7), 730-731.

Verma S, Szmitko, PE, (2006). The vascular biology of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors: Modulation of atherosclerosis. Can J Cardiol, 22 (Suppl B):12B-17B.

Walter DH, Rittig K, Bahlmann FH, Kirchmair R, Silver M, Murayama T, Nishimura H, Losordo DW, Asahara T, Isner JM, (2002). Statin therapy accelerates reendothelialization: a novel effect involving mobilization and incorporation of bone marrow-derived endothelial progenitor cells. Circulation, 105:3017–3024.

Werner N, Junk S, Laufs L, Link A, Walenta K, Bohm M, Nickenig G., (2003).  Intravenous transfusion of endothelial progenitor cells reduces neointima formation after vascular injury. Circ Res., 93:e17– e24.

Werner N, Kosiol S, Schiegl T, Ahlers P, Walenta K, Link A, Böhm M, Nickenig G. (2005a). Circulating Endothelial Progenitor Cells and Cardiovascular Outcomes,NEJM, 353: 999-1007

Werner, N & Nickenig, G. (2005b). Authors Reply to Correspondence to the Editor on Circulating Endothelial Progenitor Cells. NEJM, 353:24, 2613-2616

Widlansky ME, et al. (2003). The clinical implications of endothelial dysfunction. J Am Coll of Cardiology, 42:1149-60.

Wollert KC, Meyer GP, Latz J, Ringes-Lichtenberg S, Lippolt P, Breindenbach C, Fichtner S, Korte T, Hornig B, Messinger D, Arseniev L, Hartenstein B, Ganser A, Drexler H (2004). Intracoronary autologous bonemarrow cell transfer after myocardial infarction: the BOOST randomised controlled clinical trial. Lancet, 364:141–148.

Yamaguchi J, Kusano KF, Masuo O, Kawamoto A, Silver M, Murasawa S, Bosch-Marce M, Masuda H, Losordo DW, Isner JM, Asahara T. (2003).  Stromal cell-derived factor-1 effects on ex vivo expanded endothelial progenitor cell recruitment for ischemic neovascularization. Circulation, 107:1322–1328.

Yoon YS, Park JS, Tkebuchava T, Luedeman C, Losordo DW. (2004). Unexpected severe calcification after transplantation of bone marrow cells in acute myocardial infarction. Circulation, 109:3154 –3157.

 

 

Read Full Post »

Reporter and Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

WOEST (What is the Optimal Antiplatelet and Anticoagulant Therapy in Patients with Oral Anticoagulantion and Coronary Stenting): Get Rid Of The Aspirin In Triple Therapy

According to current guidelines and clinical practice, PCI patients already taking an oral anticoagulant generally end up on triple therapy comprising the anticoagulant plus clopidogrel and aspirin. However, there is no supporting evidence base for this approach and the triple therapy regimen is known to increase bleeding complications. Now a new study– the first randomized trial to address this situation, according to the investigators–  may have a large impact on clinical practice by demonstrating that the omission of aspirin in this context appears to be safe and may reduce adverse events.

Results of the WOEST (What is the Optimal Antiplatelet and Anticoagulant Therapy in Patients with Oral Anticoagulantion and Coronary Stenting) trial were presented by Willem Dewilde at the ESC in Munich today. Investigators in the Netherlands and Belgium randomized 573 patients to triple therapy or dual therapy of an anticoagulant plus clopidogrel for at least one month after implantation of a bare-metal stent or one year after a drug-eluting stent. Two-thirds of the patients were receiving oral anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation.

The primary endpoint, the total number of bleeding events, was dramatically reduced in the dual therapy group at one year:

  • 44.9% in the triple therapy group versus 19.5% (HR 0.36, CI 0.26-0.50)

There were 3 intracranial bleeds in each group. Most of the difference in bleeding occurred in TIMI minor and minimal bleeding. The difference in TIMI major bleeding (3.3% versus 5.8%) did not achieve statistical significance.

Clinical events, the trials’s secondary endpoint, were numerically lower in the dual therapy group. The difference in mortality achieved statistical significance.

  • Mortality: 7 deaths (2.6%) in the dual therapy group versus 18 deaths (6.4%) in the triple therapy group, p=0.027
  • MI: 3.3% versus 4.7%, p=0.382
  • TVR: 7.3% versus 6.8%, p=0.876
  • Stroke: 1.1% versus 2.9%, p=0.128)
  • Stent thrombosis: 1.5% versus 3.2%, p=0.165

“The WOEST study demonstrates that omitting aspirin leads to less bleedings but does not increase the risk of stent thrombosis, stroke or myocardial infarction,” said Dewilde in an ESC press release. “Although the number of patients in the trial is limited, this is an important finding with implications for future treatment and guidelines in this group of patients known to be at high risk of bleeding and thrombotic complications.”

David Holmes said the trial addressed “an incredibly important issue” and predicted that it would “change the way we practice medicine, it will change practice right away.” Keith Fox said that the evidence base prior to WOEST was extremely limited and that the trial showed that there was no hazard in doing without aspirin. The ESC discussant, Marco Valgimigli, said the trial showed it was safe to drop aspirin and provided another demonstration that “we have hit the wall” with anticoagulation.

Republished with permission from CardioExchange, a NEJM group publication.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryhusten/2012/08/28/woest-get-rid-of-the-aspirin-in-triple-therapy/

European Society of Cardiology: Prasugrel Can’t Top Clopidogrel in ACS

 By Todd Neale, Senior Staff Writer, MedPage Today

Published: August 26, 2012

Reviewed by Robert Jasmer, MD; Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco

MUNICH — For patients with unstable angina or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (non-STEMI) who do not undergo revascularization, increasing platelet inhibition may not improve outcomes, a randomized trial showed.

Added to a background of low-dose aspirin, prasugrel (Effient) did not significantly reduce the rate of MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death compared with clopidogrel (13.9% versus 16%, HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.05), according to Matthew Roe, MD, of Duke University in Durham, N.C.

The risk of severe bleeding was similar with both drugs, although minor and moderate bleeding were increased with prasugrel, Roe reported at the European Society of Cardiology meeting here. The findings were published simultaneously online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“I think the outcome is a bit surprising because we think usually that more aggressive antiplatelet therapy, conceivably, in the face of an acute coronary syndrome and non-ST-elevation would lead to lesser adverse outcome from acute myocardial infarction or death,” said William Zoghbi, MD, from Methodist DeBakey Heart Center in Houston and president of the American College of Cardiology.

But he said clinicians need to respect the data “and start thinking about pathogenesis and what we’re trying to do with any of our new interventions.”

In patients with unstable angina or non-STEMI, practice guidelines call for angiography within 48 to 72 hours with provisional revascularization. Many of these patients do not ultimately undergo revascularization, placing them at greater risk compared with those who have their arteries opened with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG).

Recommended medical therapy is with clopidogrel and aspirin, which is an approach that will not change from the current findings, Zoghbi said.

The purpose of the TRILOGY ACS trial was to explore whether using a more powerful platelet inhibitor — prasugrel — would improve outcomes compared clopidogrel (Plavix) in this high-risk patient subset.

The primary analysis involved 7,243 patients younger than 75 (mean age 62) who were receiving aspirin and were randomized to prasugrel 10 mg daily (or 5 mg daily for those weighing less than 132 pounds) or to clopidogrel 75 mg daily. The researchers recommended a daily aspirin dose of 100 mg or less.

A secondary, exploratory analysis involved 2,083 patients, 75 or older, who were randomized to prasugrel 5 mg daily or to clopidogrel 75 mg daily.

The lack of efficacy seen in the primary analysis of patients younger than 75 remained when patients of all ages were combined. There were no between-group differences for any of the components of the primary endpoint.

A prespecified secondary analysis taking multiple recurrent ischemic events into consideration showed a lower risk of MI, stroke, and cardiovascular death with prasugrel in the younger patients (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.00, P=0.04), a finding consistent with the main results of the TRITON-TIMI 38 trial, which involved patients treated with PCI. The apparent benefit appeared after 12 months of treatment.

“Although this observation is exploratory, it raises the question of whether investigation of the multiplicity of ischemic events is warranted in future secondary-prevention trials, rather than solely analyzing the time to the first event, as has been traditional in studies involving patients who have had an acute coronary event,” the researchers wrote.

Rates of GUSTO severe or life threatening bleeding and TIMI major bleeding — as well as intracranial hemorrhage — were similar in the two groups in both the younger patients and in the overall study population. When minor and moderate bleeding events were added, the bleeding rate was higher with prasugrel.

There were no widespread differences between the groups in rates of nonhemorrhagic serious adverse events, but heart failure was more frequent with clopidogrel (1.8% versus 1.3%, P=0.045).

Douglas Weaver, MD, of Henry Ford Health System, said that he does not think the findings will have any impact on the use of prasugrel, which is not indicated for the patient population included in the study.

“It just doesn’t pass muster in improving value over clopidogrel,” said Weaver, a past president of the American College of Cardiology.

From a clinical perspective, he said, an important message from the study is the evidence of the safety of a reduced dose of prasugrel in the patients 75 and older, which is a consideration when prescribing prasugrel for patients undergoing PCI.

In comments following Roe’s presentation, Raffaele De Caterina, MD, PhD, of the G. d’Annunzio University in Chieti, Italy, provided context about how the findings fit in with the rest of the literature.

He compared the current results to those of a substudy of the PLATO trial, which involved ticagrelor (Brilinta).

In that trial, ticagrelor significantly reduced vascular death, MI, and stroke (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.00, P=0.045) — the primary endpoint — and all-cause death (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93).

He then highlighted the ESC guidelines on treating patients with acute coronary syndromes without persistent ST-segment elevation.

In those, ticagrelor is recommended for all patients at moderate-to-high risk of ischemic events, regardless of initial treatment strategy and including those pre-treated with clopidogrel, and prasugrel is recommended for those who have not taken another P2Y12 inhibitor, who have a known coronary anatomy, and who are proceeding to PCI.

“I believe such statements and recommendations of the guidelines should not be changed,” De Caterina said.

TRILOGY ACS was funded by Eli Lilly and Daiichi Sankyo.

Roe reported relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Hoffmann-La Roche, and sanofi-aventis. The other authors reported numerous relationships with industry.

Primary source: New England Journal of Medicine

Prematurely halted ALTITUDE trial showed When added to monotherapy with either an ACE inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), aliskiren (Tekturna) did not improve outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes who had high cardiovascular and renal risk

ESC: Aliskiren Onboard No Help in T2D

By Todd Neale, Senior Staff Writer, MedPage Today

Published: August 26, 2012

Reviewed by Robert Jasmer, MD; Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco

MUNICH — When added to monotherapy with either an ACE inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), aliskiren (Tekturna) did not improve outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes who had high cardiovascular and renal risk, the prematurely halted ALTITUDE trial showed.

Through an average follow-up of 32 months, a composite of various cardiovascular and renal outcomes occurred in 17.9% of patients receiving the direct renin inhibitor and 16.8% of those receiving placebo (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.20), according to Hans-Henrik Parving, MD, DMSc, of the University of Copenhagen and Aarhus University in Denmark.

As a Hot Line presentation European Society of Cardiology meeting here, Parving reported that there were no significant differences on any of the individual components of the endpoint — cardiovascular death, resuscitated sudden death, MI, stroke, unplanned hospitalization for heart failure, doubling of baseline serum creatinine, and onset of end-stage renal disease — or all-cause death.

The rate of stroke — mostly ischemic stroke — was numerically higher with aliskiren, although the result fell short of statistical significance (3.4% versus 2.8%; HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.60,P=0.07).

Thus, Parving said, using aliskiren with ACE inhibitors or ARBs in these high-risk patients “is not recommended and may even be harmful.”

The data monitoring committee for the ALTITUDE trial decided to stop the study early in December 2011 both for futility and for adverse events. Then, earlier this year, the FDA issued a warning about using aliskiren with ACE inhibitors or ARBs and changed the drug label to reflect a contraindication for such combinations in patients with diabetes or renal impairment.

The trial included 8,561 patients with type 2 diabetes who had a high risk of cardiovascular or renal disease who were randomized to aliskiren — at 150 mg daily for 1 month followed by 300 mg daily thereafter — or placebo in addition to monotherapy with either an ACE inhibitor or an ARB (but not both).

Adding aliskiren did not improve outcomes, and in fact, may have caused harm, Parving said, as indicated by the apparent increase in stroke risk.

He said that could be explained by the impaired autoregulation of patients with diabetes or by chance, as there are no indications of a stroke risk in other studies of the drug.

Johannes Mann, of Friedrich Alexander University in Erlangen, Germany, and McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, who served as the discussant following Parving’s presentation, agreed that it could be a chance finding, but said that it could also be a direct effect of aliskiren itself.

He concluded that the stroke risk was not explained, however, by dual renin system inhibition, because such a signal was not seen in the ONTARGET trial, which compared the combination of ramipril (an ACE inhibitor) and telmisartan (an ARB) with each drug as monotherapy.

As noted when the trial was halted last year, adverse events were more frequent in the aliskiren group.

The percentage of patients who had a potassium level of 5.5 to less than 6.0 mmol/L was greater with active treatment (21% versus 16%), as was the percentage of those with a potassium level of 6.0 mmol/L or greater (8.8% versus 5.6%).

Aliskiren carried higher risks of hyperkalemia (38.7% versus 28.6%), hypotension (12.1% versus 8%), diarrhea (9.6% versus 7.2%), and falls (2.8% versus 2.6%). There was one death caused by hyperkalemia.

Douglas Weaver, MD, of the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, said that the findings were disappointing, but that they likely wouldn’t change how aliskiren is used in practice.

“I don’t think this is going to have a negative or a positive effect on it,” said Weaver, who is a past president of the American College of Cardiology.

ALTITUDE was sponsored by Novartis Pharma AG.

The executive committee and other investigators or their institutions received a consultancy fee. Some of the authors are employees of Novartis and therefore eligible for stock and stock options.

Primary source: European Society of Cardiology
Source reference:
Parving H-H, et al “The Aliskiren Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Using Cardio-Renal Endpoints (ALTITUDE)” ESC 2012; Abstract 399.

Aliskiren

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aliskiren
Systematic (IUPAC) name
(2S,4S,5S,7S)-5-amino-N-(2-carbamoyl-2,2-dimethylethyl)-4-hydroxy-7-{[4-methoxy-3-(3-methoxypropoxy)phenyl]methyl}-8-methyl-2-(propan-2-yl)nonanamide
Aliskiren (INN) (trade names Tekturna, U.S.; Rasilez, U.K. and elsewhere) is the first in a class of drugs called direct renin inhibitors. Its current licensed indication is essential (primary) hypertension.

Aliskiren was co-developed by the Swiss pharmaceutical companies Novartis and Speedel.[1][2] It was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2007 for the treatment of primary hypertension.[3]

In December 2011, Novartis had to halt a clinical trial of the drug after discovering increased incidence of non-fatal stroke, renal complications, hyperkalemia and hypotension in patients with diabetes and renal impairment.[4]

The following recommendations are being added to the drug labels for aliskiren-containing products as of 4/20/12:

I) A new contraindication against the use of aliskiren with ARBs or ACEIs in patients with diabetes because of the risk of renal impairment, hypotension, and hyperkalemia. II) A warning to avoid use of aliskiren with ARBs or ACEIs in patients with moderate to severe renal impairment (i.e., where glomerular filtration rate [GFR] < 60 mL/min).

Mechanism of Action

Renin is the first enzyme in the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system which plays a role in blood pressure control. Renin cleaves angiotensinogen to angiotensin I, which is in turn converted by angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) toangiotensin II. Angiotensin II has both direct and indirect effects on blood pressure. It directly causes arterial smooth muscle to contract, leading to vasoconstriction and increased blood pressure. Angiotensin II also stimulates the production of aldosterone from the adrenal cortex, which causes the tubules of the kidneys to increase reabsorption of sodium, with water following thereby increasing plasma volume and blood pressure.

Aliskiren binds to the S3bp binding pocket of renin, essential for its activity.[5] Binding to this pocket prevents the conversion of angiotensinogen to angiotensin I.
Aliskiren is also available as combination therapy with hydrochlorothiazide.[6]

Many drugs control blood pressure by interfering with angiotensin or aldosterone. However, when these drugs are used chronically, the body increases renin production, which drives blood pressure up again. Therefore, doctors have been looking for a drug to inhibit renin directly. Aliskiren is the first drug to do so.[7][8]

Aliskiren may have renoprotective effects that are independent of its blood pressure−lowering effect in patients with hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and nephropathy who are receiving the recommended renoprotective treatment. According to the AVOID study, researchers found that treatment with 300 mg of aliskiren daily, as compared with placebo, reduced the mean urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio by 20% (95% confidence interval, 9 to 30; P<0.001), with a reduction of 50% or more in 24.7% of the patients who received aliskiren as compared with 12.5% of those who received placebo (P<0.001). Furthermore, the AVOID trial shows that treatment with 300 mg of aliskiren daily reduces albuminuria in patients with hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and proteinuria who are receiving the recommended maximal renoprotective treatment with losartan and optimal antihypertensive therapy. Therefore, direct renin inhibition will have a critical role in strategic renoprotective pharmacotherapy, in conjunction with dual blockade of the renin−angiotensin−aldosterone system with the use of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II–receptor blockers, very high doses of angiotensin II−receptor blockers, and aldosterone blockade.[9]

Adverse effects

  • Angioedema
  • Hyperkalemia (particularly when used with ACE inhibitors in diabetic patients)
  • Hypotension (particularly in volume-depleted patients)
  • Diarrhea and other GI symptoms
  • Headache
  • Dizziness
  • Cough
  • Rash
  • Elevated uric acidgout, and renal stones
  • Rarely: allergic swelling of the face, lips or tongue and difficulty breathing

Contraindications

  • Pregnancy: other drugs such as ACE inhibitors, also acting on the renin-angiotensin system have been associated with fetal malformations and neonatal death[10]
  • Breast feeding: during animal studies, the drug has been found present in milk.[10]

Aliskiren has not yet been evaluated in patients with significantly impaired renal function.

Drug interactions

Aliskiren is a minor substrate of CYP3A4 and, more important, P-glycoprotein:

  • Reduces furosemide blood concentration.
  • Atorvastatin may increase blood concentration, however no dose adjustment needed.
  • Possible interaction with ciclosporin (the concomitant use of ciclosporin and aliskiren is contraindicated).
  • Caution should be exercised when aliskiren is administered with ketoconazole or other moderate P-gp inhibitors (itraconazole, clarithromycin, telithromycin, erythromycin, amiodarone).
  • Doctors should stop prescribing aliskiren-containing medicines to patients with diabetes (type 1 or type 2) or with moderate to severe kidney impairment who are also taking an ACE inhibitor or ARB, and should consider alternative antihypertensive treatment as necessary.[11]

References

  1. ^ Gradman A, Schmieder R, Lins R, Nussberger J, Chiang Y, Bedigian M (2005). “Aliskiren, a novel orally effective renin inhibitor, provides dose-dependent antihypertensive efficacy and placebo-like tolerability in hypertensive patients”. Circulation 111 (8): 1012–8. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.0000156466.02908.EDPMID 15723979.
  2. ^ Straessen JA, Li Y, and Richart T (2006). “Oral Renin Inhibitors”Lancet 368 (9545): 1449–56. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69442-7PMID 17055947.
  3. ^ “First Hypertension Drug to Inhibit Kidney Enzyme Approved”CBC. 2007-03-06. Retrieved 2007-03-14.[dead link]
  4. ^ Healthzone.ca: Blood-pressure drug reviewed amid dangerous side effects
  5. ^ “Chemistry & Biology : Structure-based drug design: the discovery of novel nonpeptide orally active inhibitors of human renin”. ScienceDirect. Retrieved 2010-01-20.
  6. ^ Baldwin CM, Plosker GL.[1]doi:10.2165/00003495-200969070-00004. Drugs 2009; 69(7):833-841.
  7. ^ Ingelfinger JR (June 2008). “Aliskiren and dual therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus”N. Engl. J. Med. 358 (23): 2503–5. doi:10.1056/NEJMe0803375.PMID 18525047.
  8. ^ PharmaXChange: Direct Renin Inhibitors as Antihypertensive Drugs
  9. ^ Parving HH, Persson F, Lewis JB, Lewis EJ, Hollenberg NK. “Aliskiren Combined with Losartan in Type 2 Diabetes and Nephropathy,” N Engl J Med 2008;358:2433-46.
  10. a b Drugs.com: Tekturna
  11. ^ European Medicines Agency recommends new contraindications and warnings for aliskiren-containing medicines.

External links

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliskiren

Read Full Post »

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Updated 3/10/2013

Since August 25, 2012, when the ESC: New Definition of MI Unveiled was reviewed by Robert Jasmer, MD; Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco as was reported  By Chris Kaiser, Cardiology Editor, MedPage Today,  a new discussion emerged by ACC asking if FFR CT is Ready for prime time or not?

By Lisa Fratt
Mar 09, 2013

SAN FRANCISCO—Is there a better way to measure fractional flow reserve (FFR), Bon-Kwon Koo, MD, of Seoul National University queried a crowded room March 9 during an educational session at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) scientific session.

The current model is good for patients, safe and effective, Koo said. However, it requires an invasive procedure and is expensive. FFR CT may provide a method to measure FFR without an invasive procedure.

FFRCT extracts geometry from a CT scan to determine boundary conditions and fluid properties. In addition, velocity and pressure can be calculated. The hitch is that a supercomputer is required to solve the blood flow equation, said Koo. The results provide anatomical and functional data, thus giving a possible answer to the question at hand.

FFRCT may change daily practice in several ways. Most importantly, it may be a novel, fast, risk-free, noninvasive cost-saving way to measure FFR and identify patients who may not need to be sent to the cath lab for stenting or PCI. It can provide information to help surgeons plan strategies before invasive procedures, bypass procedures or interventional procedures. Noninvasive CT-derived FFR also can predict the functional significance of coronary lesions.

Despite its promise, however, FFR CT is not ready for prime time, Koo said. FFR CT depends on the diagnostic accuracy of coronary CT angiography stenosis, which is less than true stenosis. With current technologies, true stenosis provides the required diagnostic accuracy.

FFRCT is promising, but further development of the technology is required, Koo concluded.

http://www.cardiovascularbusiness.com/topics/imaging/acc-ffrct—ready-prime-time-or-not

ESC: New Definition of MI Unveiled

By Chris Kaiser, Cardiology Editor, MedPage Today

Published: August 25, 2012

Reviewed by Robert Jasmer, MD; Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco

MUNICH — An international, multispecialty task force has published a new definition of myocardial infarction that was prompted by the new generation of highly sensitive cardiac troponin (cTn) assays.

The highly sensitive assays are capable of detecting cTn in conditions other than MI, such as pulmonary embolism, cardiomyopathy, and left bundle branch block, and so result in false positives, according to the task force writing group.

The expert consensus document dips into a controversial area by setting levels of cTn for MI associated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

“This is one of the most controversial areas in the definition of myocardial infarction,” Anthony DeMaria, MD, from the University of California in San Diego and editor-in-chief of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, told MedPage Today.

“There are a large number of people undergoing PCI in the setting of an acute MI. It’s almost impossible to know whether a subsequent increase in troponin was part and parcel of the acute MI or related to the procedure itself,” DeMaria said.

The consensus document, titled “Third Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction,” set the cTn levels for MI associated with PCI as elevation of troponin greater than 5 times the 99th percentile upper reference limit (URL) in patients with normal baseline levels or a rise in troponin values greater than 20% if the baseline values are elevated and are stable or falling.

“Some people speculate that troponin may be too sensitive in this situation and what is needed is evidence that an elevation of some degree of troponin following a procedure actually results in some alteration of the natural history of the patient,” DeMaria said. “In other words, the definition of acute MI after a procedure really is of significance if it increases the risk of subsequent events such as death.”

In CABG, the task force set the troponin values as greater than 10 x 99th percentile URL during the first 48 hours when baseline values are normal.

DeMaria said there are several ongoing studies examining the correlation of elevated cTn with subsequent events. As this is the third definition of MI since 2000, there most likely will be more refinements as new data emerge, he said.

The document is being copublished online in several journals including the Journal of the American College of CardiologyCirculation, the European Heart Journal, and Global Heart.

The task force was in touch with the FDA during the development of this new definition, which means it could be used as the basis for clinical trial protocols designed according to FDA regulations.

“A universal definition for MI is of great benefit for clinical studies, since it will allow a standardized approach for interpretation and comparison across different trials,” the task force writing group explained.

When different definitions have been used in trials, it hampers “comparison and generalization between these trials,” they said.

Also of significance in this document is the inclusion of imaging as a means to identify or confirm an MI. The document spells out the strengths of echocardiography, nuclear imaging, MRI, and CT in the setting of acute MI.

“Imaging is playing an increasingly important role,” DeMaria said. “In the absence of focal symptoms or with an inconclusive ECG, it’s important to recognize the concomitant potential of ancillary measures, primarily imaging, to help with the diagnosis of a myocardial infarction.”

Thygesen reported relationships with Edwards Lifesciences, Servier, St. Jude Medical, Roche Pharma, and Roche Diagnostics. Her co-authors and reviewers reported relationships with Bayer Healthcare, Daiichi Sankyo, Johnson & Johnson, sanofi aventis, Servier, Novartis, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Genzyme, Eli Lilly, OrthoClinical Diagnostics, Abbott Laboratories, Alere, Brahms, Siemens Healthcare, Roche Pharma, Radiometer, BioRad, Diagenics, Response Medical, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Regado Biosciences, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Portola Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Regado Biosciences, Scios, Ortho-Biotech, Pfizer, Kai Pharmaceuticals, Iroko Cardio, Philips, GE Healthcare, Boston Scientific, Lantheus, Medtronic, St. Jude Medical, Biotronik, Impulse Dynamics, Edwards Lifesciences, Health System Networks, Health Station Networks, Insight Telehealth Systems, Elsevier Sciences, Gilead, Evolva, Medicines Company, F. Hoffman La Roche, Torrent, Vifor International, Corthera, Nanosphere, Bayer Schering Pharma, Cardiorentis, Molecular Insight Pharmaceuticals, Berlin Chemie, Menarini, Cordis, Beckman Coulter, Amgen, Critical Diagnostics, Tethys Bioscience, Roche Diagnostics, bioMérieux, Genentech, Ikaria, Singulex, BG Medicine, Shionogi, Amylin, DiaDexus, Orion, WebMD, theheart.org, Pozen, Maquet, BHFZ, Covidien, Rapidscan, Actelion, Athera, Symetis, Schering-Plough, OrbusNeich, Terumo, Cardio3 Biosciences, Micell, Ablynx, Therabel, Kowa, Zentiva, Chugai Pharma, Automedics Medical Systems, Essentialis, Biosensors, Vascular Solutions, Zoll Medical, JaBA Recordati, Actavis, PharmaSwiss, Eisai, Medscape, Accumetrics, Bial Portela, AGA, Novo-Nordisk, Janssen-Cilag, Valtech, Otsuka Pharmaceuticals, Meda Pharma, CEPHALON, Intracellular Therapies USA, Santhera, TROPHOS, Pierre-Fabre, and Lundbeck.

DeMaria reported relationships with Gilead, ResMed Foundation, Lantheus, Cardiovascular Biotherapeutics, Angioblast Systems, General Electric Medical Systems, and Cardionet.

Primary source: European Heart Journal

Source reference:
Thygesen K, et al “Third universal definition of myocardial infarction” Eur Heart J 2012; DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs184.

ESC: FFR CT Has Potential for Tagging Ischemia

By Chris Kaiser, Cardiology Editor, MedPage Today

Published: August 26, 2012

Reviewed by Robert Jasmer, MD; Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco

MUNICH — Using CT imaging to assess the hemodynamic significance of coronary lesions is “promising” but needs more research before it displaces conventional invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR), researchers said.

Using FFR as the reference standard, FFRCTplus CT angiography (CTA) had good sensitivity (90%) and negative predictive value (84%) on a per patient basis for detecting ischemia, which indicates a low rate of false-negative studies, according to James K. Min, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute in Los Angeles, and colleagues.

Although FFRCT plus CTA were superior to CTA alone, the specificity (54%) and negative predictive value (67%) of the combination remained low compared with conventional FFR, indicating that a considerable number of false-positive studies would endure, Min reported here during a Hot-Line session at the European Society of Cardiology meeting.

The results of this proof of concept study show that FFRCT can “impart considerable discriminatory power” to detect and exclude ischemia in patients with suspected CAD, Min said.

However, future studies should be conducted to determine the cost-effectiveness of FFRCT in guiding decisions to stent, particularly given the potentially high false-positive rate, he added.

“Non-invasive FFR is a dream for all interventional cardiologists,” said study discussant Jean-Pierre Bassand, MD, of the University Hospital Jean-Minjoz in Besançon, France. Although Bassand praised the DeFACTO study, he expressed concern about the discrepancy between the accuracy of FFR versus FFRCT.

For example, compared with FFR, the sensitivity and specificity of FFRCT in cases of greater than 90% or less than 30% stenosis were 83% and 76%, respectively. The per-vessel correlation of FFRCT to FFR was 0.63.

“What matters is the correlation with FFR,” he concluded.

A single non-invasive imaging test that can identify obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) and determine the physiological significance of those lesions would be ideal. At present, nuclear stress imaging fulfills the first part, but it cannot label stenoses as hemodynamically significant or not. Also, nuclear stress testing suffers from high rates of both false-negative and false-positive studies, Min said.

The results of this study are in line with stress imaging: per patient diagnostic accuracy of 73% (95% CI 67% to 78%). Min said that studies are being designed to compare FFRCT plus CTA with stress imaging.

“For patients considered for invasive therapy, this type of test could help exclude those who don’t need to be stented,” Spencer King III, MD, of St. Joseph’s Hospital in Atlanta told MedPage Today.

“The excitement about this CT approach is that it moves things closer to being able to assess physiology and anatomy in a single non-invasive test,” added King, who is also a past president of the American College of Cardiology.

However, the process of calculating the FFR values from CT data currently takes about 6 hours, Min told MedPage Today. The CT data are sent offsite to HeartFlow, the company that makes the software. Whether such processing would be done onsite in the future is not yet determined, Min said. He also expects the processing time to drop to about 2 hours by the year’s end.

HeartFlow has already received EU mark to use the software in Europe and is in the process of applying for FDA approval, Min said.

Conventional FFR uses a pressure wire inserted through the groin to the coronary arteries to determine the hemodynamic significance of lesions. The same data can be gleaned during a typical CTA exam with software that calculates computational fluid dynamics,without additional radiation exposure. The median radiation exposure among the study centers was 6.4 mSv (range 4.4 to 15 mSv).

The original FAME study found the use of FFR to guide stenting was better than relying on angiography alone in patients with multivessel disease. A second study, FAME II, was stopped early because of the overwhelming benefit seen in patients with stable CAD when FFR guided stenting versus patients randomized to optimal medical therapy.

Because FFRCT is a novel technique, it has not been adequately evaluated in its ability to identify patients with ischemia, Min said.

The researchers therefore designed the DeFACTO (Determination of Fractional Flow Reserve by Anatomic Computed Tomographic Angiography) study, which sought to evaluate the accuracy of FFRCT while using invasive FFR as the reference standard.

The study was also simultaneously published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The 252 patients with suspected or known CAD were recruited from 17 centers in five countries between October 2010 and October 2011. They were scheduled to undergo diagnostic catheter angiography.

The mean age of patients was 63, 70% were men, and a majority were white. Nearly half of the patients had obstructive CAD (>50% stenosis).

Among 615 study vessels, 271 had less than 30% stenosis and 101 had at least 90% stenosis. Invasive coronary angiography and FFR identified 46.5% of 408 vessels with obstructive CAD, while CT and FFRCT identified 52.3% of 406 vessels.

A total of 172 patients had an FFR value <0.80, which indicates an ischemic lesion.

The diagnostic accuracy of FFRCT plus CT was 73% (95% CI 67% to 78%), but this did not meet the prespecified primary endpoint of greater than 70% of the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval, Min said.

However, Min emphasized that FFRCT was superior to CTA alone in all categories.

The researchers concluded that the results show the potential of FFRCT as a “promising” non-invasive tool to identify ischemia.

King added that despite not meeting the prespecified primary endpoint, “it’s an encouraging early study.”

This study was funded by HeartFlow

Min reported relationships with GE Healthcare and Philips Medical. Some of his co-authors reported relationships with GE Healthcare, Siemens Medical Systems, Lantheus Medical Imaging, Boston Scientific, Merck, Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, Cordis, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and sanofi-aventis.

King reporeted relationships with Merck & Company, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Celonova Biosciences, and Northpoint Domain.

 

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts