Advertisements
Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Daiichi Sankyo’


Myocardial Infarction: The New Definition After Revascularization

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

UPDATED on 7/31/2014

Myocardial Ischemia Symptoms

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2014/07/29/myocardial-ischemia-symptoms/

 

VIEW VIDEO

Gregg Stone, MD

Co-DIrector, Medical Research & Education Division Cardiovascular Research Foundation

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/MyocardialInfarction/42256?xid=nl_mpt_DHE_2013-10-15&goback=%2Egmr_4346921%2Egde_4346921_member_5795830612724035588#%21

Primary source: Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Source reference: Moussa I, et al “Consideration of a new definition of clinically relevant myocardial infarction after coronary revascularization: an expert consensus document from the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI)” J Am Coll Cardiol2013; 62: 1563-1570.

Additional source: Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Source reference:White H “Avatar of the universal definition of periprocedural myocardial infarction” J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 62: 1571-1574.

Moussa reported that he had no conflicts of interest.

Stone is a consultant for Boston Scientific, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca. The other authors reported relationships with Guerbet, The Medicines Company, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Sanofi, Merck, Maya Medical, AstraZeneca, Abbott Vascular, Regado Biosciences, Janssen Pharma, Lilly/Daiichi Sankyo, St. Jude Medical, Medtronic, Terumo, Bridgepoint/Boston Scientific, Gilead, Boston Scientific, Eli Lilly, and Daiichi Sankyo.

White is co-chairman for the Task Force for the Universal Definiton of Myocardial Infarction; has received research grants from sanofi-aventis, Eli Lilly, The Medicines Company, the NIH, Pfizer, Roche, Johnson & Johnson, Schering-Plough, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; and has served on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Roche, and Regado Biosciences.

WASHINGTON, DC — A “clinically meaningful” definition of MI following PCI or CABG is urgently needed to replace the arbitrarily chosen “universal definition” proposed in recent years that has no relevance to patients and may be muddying clinical-trial results. Those are the conclusions of a new expert consensus document released Monday by the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI)[1].

The notion of a “universal definition of MI” was first proposed in 2000 and updated in 2007 and 2012. The 2012 document defines a PCI-related MI as an increase in cardiac troponin (cTn) of more than five times the upper limit of normal (ULN) during the first 48 hours postprocedure plus specific clinical or ECG features. Post-CABG, the definition is a cTn increase of >10 times the ULN, plus different clinical or ECG features.

The problem, lead author Dr Issam Moussa (Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL) told heartwire , is that these cutoffs were arbitrarily chosen and not based on any hard evidence that these biomarker levels spelled a poor prognosis. Moreover, “overnight, the rate of MI went from 5% following these procedures to 20% to 30%!” he said.

The SCAI committee, in its new document, focuses on post-PCI procedures and highlights the importance of acquiring baseline cardiac biomarkers and differentiating between patients with elevated baseline CK-MB (or cTn) in whom biomarker levels are stable or falling, as well as those in whom it hasn’t been established whether biomarkers are changing.

SCAI’s Proposed Clinically Meaningful MI Definitions

Group Definition
Normal baseline CK-MB CK-MB rise of >10x ULN or >5x ULN with new pathologic Q-waves in at least 2 contiguous leads or new persistent left bundle branch block
OR
In the absence of baseline CK-MB, a cTn rise of >70x ULN or a rise of>35 ULN plus new pathologic Q-waves in at least 2 contiguous leads or new persistent left bundle branch block
Elevated baseline biomarkers that are stable or falling A CK-MB or cTn rise that is equal (by an absolute increment) to the definitions described for patients with normal CK-MB at baseline.
Elevated baseline biomarkers that have not been shown to be stable or falling A CK-MB or cTn rise that is equal (by an absolute increment) to the definitions described for patients with normal CK-MB at baseline
Plus
New ST-segment elevation or depression
Plus
New-onset or worsening heart failure or sustained hypotension or other signs of a clinically relevant MI.

Moussa is quick to emphasize that these new clinically meaningful definitions have limited evidence to support them—and most of what exists supports CK-MB definitions, not cTn—but that the new document is based on the best scientific evidence available.

“We don’t want to come out with a definitive statement” saying this is the final word on MI definitions,” he stressed. “There is more science that needs to be done and there remains more uncertainty. We framed this to be inclusive and also to open the field for discussion.”

His hope is that this will lead to important changes in how patients are managed and money is spent. Currently, patients with clinically meaningless biomarker elevations may become unnecessarily panicked over news that they’ve had a “heart attack,” while hospital stays may be extended and further tests ordered on the basis of these results.

Moussa et al’s proposal also has important implications for clinical trials, he continued. Currently, for studies that include periprocedural MIs as an individual end point or as part of a composite end point, the very high number of biomarker-defined “MIs” collected in the trial could potentially overwhelm the true impact of any given therapy. “You are really using an end point that is truly not relevant to patients. . . . This could really affect the whole hypothesis.”

He’s expecting some push-back from cardiologists and academics, particularly those who championed the need for the universal definition in the first place, but believes most people will welcome a clinically meaningful definition.

“I think many in the medical community will accept this because they have not really been using the universal definition in their day-to-day practice anyhow.” What’s more, the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) does not include the reporting of MI postangiography, in part because of concerns that the universal definition of MI overestimates the true incidence of this problem. “I think many in the community will look at this definition as more reflective of the true incidence of MI after angioplasty, and if it’s accepted, they are more likely to report it to databases like NCDR and use it to reflect quality-of-care processes.”

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/812533?nlid=35983_2105&src=wnl_edit_medp_card&uac=93761AJ&spon=2

  • ESC/ACCF/AHA/WHF Expert Consensus Document

Circulation.2012; 126: 2020-2035  Published online before print August 24, 2012,doi: 10.1161/​CIR.0b013e31826e1058

Third Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction

  1. Kristian Thygesen;
  2. Joseph S. Alpert;
  3. Allan S. Jaffe;
  4. Maarten L. Simoons;
  5. Bernard R. Chaitman;
  6. Harvey D. White
  7. the Writing Group on behalf of the Joint ESC/ACCF/AHA/WHF Task Force for the Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction
  1. *Corresponding authors/co-chairpersons: Professor Kristian Thygesen, Department of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Tage-Hansens Gade 2, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. Tel: +45 7846-7614; fax: +45 7846-7619: E-mail: kristhyg@rm.dk. Professor Joseph S. Alpert, Department of Medicine, Univ. of Arizona College of Medicine, 1501 N. Campbell Ave., P.O. Box 245037, Tucson AZ 85724, USA, Tel: +1 520 626 2763, Fax: +1 520 626 0967, E-mail: jalpert@email.arizona.edu. Professor Harvey D. White, Green Lane Cardiovascular Service, Auckland City Hospital, Private Bag 92024, 1030 Auckland, New Zealand. Tel: +64 9 630 9992, Fax: +64 9 630 9915, E-mail: harveyw@adhb.govt.nz.

Table of Contents

  • Abbreviations and Acronyms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2021

  • Definition of Myocardial Infarction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2022

  • Criteria for Acute Myocardial Infarction. . . . . . . . . . . .2022

  • Criteria for Prior Myocardial Infarction. . . . . . . . . . . .2022

  • Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2022

  • Pathological Characteristics of Myocardial Ischaemia and Infarction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2023

  • Biomarker Detection of Myocardial Injury With Necrosis. . .2023

  • Clinical Features of Myocardial Ischaemia and Infarction. . .2024

  • Clinical Classification of Myocardial Infarction. . . .2024
    • Spontaneous Myocardial Infarction (MI Type 1). . . .2024

    • Myocardial Infarction Secondary to an Ischaemic Imbalance (MI Type 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2024

    • Cardiac Death Due to Myocardial Infarction (MI Type 3). .2025

    • Myocardial Infarction Associated With Revascularization Procedures (MI Types 4 and 5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …

New Definition for MI After Revascularization

Published: Oct 14, 2013 | Updated: Oct 15, 2013

By Todd Neale, Senior Staff Writer, MedPage Today
Reviewed by Zalman S. Agus, MD; Emeritus Professor, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and Dorothy Caputo, MA, BSN, RN, Nurse Planner

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) has released a new definition for myocardial infarction (MI) following coronary revascularization aimed at identifying only those events likely to be related to poorer patient outcomes.

In the new criteria — published as an expert consensus document inCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology — creatine kinase-myocardial band (CK-MB) is the preferred cardiac biomarker over troponin, and much greater elevations are required to define a clinically relevant MI compared with the universal definition of MI proposed in 2007 and revised in 2012.

Also, the new definition uses the same biomarker elevation thresholds to identify MIs following both percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), whereas the universal definition has different thresholds for events following the two procedures.

“What we’ve really tried to emphasize in this classification scheme is the primary link between biomarker elevations and prognosis,” according to Gregg Stone, MD, of Columbia University Medical Center and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation in New York City, one of the authors of the document.

“In the universal definition of MI, they even acknowledged that their criteria were arbitrary,” Stone said in an interview. “We’ve tried to reduce the arbitrariness of the cutoff values that we selected so that the researcher, academician, clinician, hospital administrator, etc., can be confident that these levels that we’re recommending are the ones that are associated with a worse prognosis for patients suffering periprocedural complications.”

The Change

The existing universal definition for MI defines events following PCI according to an increase in cardiac troponin to greater than five times the 99th percentile upper reference limit (URL) within 48 hours when baseline levels are normal, with confirmation by electrocardiogram (ECG), imaging, or symptoms.

For CABG-related MI, the increase must be more than 10 times the 99th percentile URL within 48 hours when baseline levels are normal, with confirmation by ECG, angiography, or imaging.

But, Stone and colleagues wrote, the relationship between that degree of troponin elevation after a revascularization procedure and prognosis is not as strong as the association between a CK-MB elevation and patient outcomes.

Using a small elevation in troponin to define a post-procedure MI could find myocardial necrosis that is unlikely to be associated with poor clinical outcomes, which could have far-reaching implications, they wrote.

“Widespread adoption of an MI definition not clearly linked to subsequent adverse events such as mortality or heart failure may have serious consequences for the appropriate assessment of devices and therapies, may affect clinical care pathways, and may result in misinterpretation of physician competence,” they wrote.

To address that issue, the expert panel convened by SCAI sought to define clinically relevant MI after PCI or CABG.

A clinically relevant MI is defined in the new document based on an increase of at least 10 times the upper limit of normal in the level of CK-MB within 48 hours after a revascularization procedure when baseline levels are normal.

When the CK-MB level is not available, then an increase in troponin I or T of at least 70 times the upper limit of normal can be used to define a clinically relevant MI, according to the authors.

However, if an ECG shows new pathologic Q-waves in at least two contiguous leads or a new persistent left bundle branch block, then the thresholds can be lowered to at least five times and at least 35 times the upper limit of normal for CK-MB and troponin, respectively.

Further guidance is provided for identifying clinically relevant post-procedure MIs when the cardiac biomarker levels are elevated at baseline.

Dueling Definitions

Co-chairman of the Task Force for the Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction, Harvey White, DSc, of Auckland City Hospital in Auckland, New Zealand, noted some limitations of the new definition, including the lack of a requirement for ischemic symptoms.

“Ischemic symptoms have always been a basic tenet of the diagnosis of MI, and it should be no different for a [PCI-related] MI,” he wrote in an accompanying editorial.

In addition, with the use of such large elevations in biomarker levels in the new definition, “there will be very few PCI-related events identified, and an opportunity to improve patient outcomes may be lost,” he wrote.

Troponin should remain the preferred biomarker over CK-MB, White argued, pointing to variability in and analytical issues with CK-MB assays, the need for sex-specific cutoffs for CK-MB levels, the need for higher thresholds of CK-MB to determine abnormalities because all individuals have circulating levels of the biomarker, and the reduced sensitivity and specificity of CK-MB.

Also, he said, CK-MB is becoming increasingly unavailable at medical centers.

“With CK-MB becoming obsolete, troponin will become the gold standard, and CK-MB will no longer have a role in defining PCI injury and infarction in clinical practice,” White wrote.

Stone admitted that troponin ultimately might be preferable to CK-MB because of its greater specificity, although the evidence does not yet support it.

“I think there’s a general desirability to move to troponins, although when you look at the data that’s out there it’s much stronger correlating CK-MB elevations to subsequent prognosis,” he said. “I think a lot of the troponin elevations are just noise or troponins are just too sensitive.”

Room for Both?

White noted in his editorial that “the rationale for the SCAI definition has been well articulated by its authors and may be appropriate in an individual trial, but it should not supplant the universal definition of MI,” he wrote.

When asked whether the new definition would replace the universal definition, Stone said there is a place for both sets of criteria.

“We would propose the clinically relevant definition be the one that is used to make most substantial decisions right now, [such as] trade-offs between efficacy and safety for new drugs and devices, in judging hospital systems and physicians, etc.,” he said. “But I do think there’s value in both, and they will both continue to evolve over time as new data becomes evident.”

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/MyocardialInfarction/42256?xid=nl_mpt_DHE_2013-10-15&goback=%2Egmr_4346921%2Egde_4346921_member_5795830612724035588#%21 

Articles citing 

Third Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction

  • Improved long-term clinical outcomes in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing remote ischaemic conditioning as an adjunct to primary percutaneous coronary interventionEur Heart J. 2013;0:eht369v1-eht369

  • The role of myeloperoxidase (MPO) for prognostic evaluation in sensitive cardiac troponin I negative chest pain patients in the emergency departmentEuropean Heart Journal: Acute Cardiovascular Care. 2013;2:203-210,
  • Coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous revascularization in acute myocardial infarction?Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg. 2013;0:ivt381v1-ivt381,
  • Ischemic Conditioning as an Adjunct to Percutaneous Coronary InterventionCirc Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6:484-492,
  • High sensitivity cardiac troponin in patients with chest painBMJ. 2013;347:f4222,
  • Chest Pain and Palpitations: Taking a Closer LookCirculation. 2013;128:271-277,
  • An Updated Definition of Stroke for the 21st Century: A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke AssociationStroke. 2013;44:2064-2089,
  • Factors Influencing the 99th Percentile of Cardiac Troponin I Evaluated in Community-Dwelling Individuals at 70 and 75 Years of AgeClin. Chem.. 2013;59:1068-1073,
  • Detection and management of asymptomatic myocardial injury after noncardiac surgeryEuropean Journal of Preventive Cardiology.2013;0:2047487313494294v1-2047487313494294,
  • Postoperative Troponin Screening: A Cardiac Cassandra?Circulation. 2013;127:2253-2256,
  • Remote Ischemic Preconditioning Improves Outcome at 6 Years After Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The CRISP Stent Trial Long-term Follow-upCirc Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6:246-251,
  • Outcomes for Clinical Studies Assessing Drug and Revascularization Therapies for Claudication and Critical Limb Ischemia in Peripheral Artery DiseaseCirculation. 2013;127:1241-1250,
  • Prevalence, Incidence, and Implications of Silent Myocardial Infarctions in Patients With Diabetes MellitusCirculation. 2013;127:965-967,
  • 2013 ACCF/AHA Key Data Elements and Definitions for Measuring the Clinical Management and Outcomes of Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes and Coronary Artery Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Data Standards (Writing Committee to Develop Acute Coronary Syndromes and Coronary Artery Disease Clinical Data Standards)Circulation. 2013;127:1052-1089,
  • Clin. Chem.. 2013;59:574-576,
  • Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Optimal Medical Therapy for Prevention of Spontaneous Myocardial Infarction in Subjects With Stable Ischemic Heart DiseaseCirculation. 2013;127:769-781,
  • Frequency of Myocardial Infarction and Its Relationship to Angiographic Collateral Flow in Territories Supplied by Chronically Occluded Coronary ArteriesCirculation. 2013;127:703-709,
  • The Power of More Than OneCirculation. 2013;127:665-667,
  • The curious life of the biomarkerJournal of the American Dental Association. 2013;144:126-128,
  • Persistent Increases in Cardiac Troponin Concentrations As Measured with High-Sensitivity Assays after Acute Myocardial InfarctionClin. Chem.. 2013;59:443-445,
  • 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice GuidelinesCirculation. 2013;127:e362-e425,
Advertisements

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 »


Coronary CT Angiography versus Standard Evaluation in Acute Chest Pain

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Coronary CT Angiography versus Standard Evaluation in Acute Chest Pain

Udo Hoffmann, M.D., M.P.H., Quynh A. Truong, M.D., M.P.H., David A. Schoenfeld, Ph.D., Eric T. Chou, M.D., Pamela K. Woodard, M.D., John T. Nagurney, M.D., M.P.H., J. Hector Pope, M.D., Thomas H. Hauser, M.D., M.P.H., Charles S. White, M.D., Scott G. Weiner, M.D., M.P.H., Shant Kalanjian, M.D., Michael E. Mullins, M.D., Issam Mikati, M.D., W. Frank Peacock, M.D., Pearl Zakroysky, B.A., Douglas Hayden, Ph.D., Alexander Goehler, M.D., Ph.D., Hang Lee, Ph.D., G. Scott Gazelle, M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D., Stephen D. Wiviott, M.D., Jerome L. Fleg, M.D., and James E. Udelson, M.D. for the ROMICAT-II Investigators

N Engl J Med 2012; 367:299-308 July 26, 2012

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether an evaluation incorporating coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) is more effective than standard evaluation in the emergency department in patients with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndromes.

METHODS

In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned patients 40 to 74 years of age with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndromes but without ischemic electrocardiographic changes or an initial positive troponin test to early CCTA or to standard evaluation in the emergency department on weekdays during daylight hours between April 2010 and January 2012. The primary end point was length of stay in the hospital. Secondary end points included rates of discharge from the emergency department, major adverse cardiovascular events at 28 days, and cumulative costs. Safety end points were undetected acute coronary syndromes.

RESULTS

The rate of acute coronary syndromes among 1000 patients with a mean (±SD) age of 54±8 years (47% women) was 8%. After early CCTA, as compared with standard evaluation, the mean length of stay in the hospital was reduced by 7.6 hours (P<0.001) and more patients were discharged directly from the emergency department (47% vs. 12%, P<0.001). There were no undetected acute coronary syndromes and no significant differences in major adverse cardiovascular events at 28 days. After CCTA, there was more downstream testing and higher radiation exposure. The cumulative mean cost of care was similar in the CCTA group and the standard-evaluation group ($4,289 and $4,060, respectively; P=0.65).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients in the emergency department with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndromes, incorporating CCTA into a triage strategy improved the efficiency of clinical decision making, as compared with a standard evaluation in the emergency department, but it resulted in an increase in downstream testing and radiation exposure with no decrease in the overall costs of care. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ROMICAT-II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01084239.)

Supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (U01HL092040 and U01HL092022) and the National Institutes of Health (UL1RR025758, K23HL098370, and L30HL093896, to Dr. Truong).

Dr. Gazelle reports receiving consulting fees from GE Healthcare; Dr. Hauser, receiving consulting fees from Astellas and the Harvard Clinical Research Institute; Dr. Hoffmann, receiving grant support from the American College of Radiology Imaging Network, Bracco Diagnostics, Genentech, and Siemens Healthcare on behalf of his institution; Dr. Nagurney, receiving grant support from Alere (Biosite), Brahms Diagnostica (Fischer), and Nanosphere on behalf of his institution; Dr. Truong, receiving grant support from St. Jude Medical and Qi Imaging on behalf of her institution and travel support from Medconvent and the Society of Cardiac Computed Tomography; Dr. Wiviott, receiving consulting fees from Arena Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Ortho-McNeil, grant support from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, and Merck and Schering-Plough on behalf of his institution, and lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Schering-Plough; and Dr. Udelson, being on the scientific advisory board of Lantheus Medical Imaging. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

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

SOURCE INFORMATION

The authors’ affiliations are listed in the Appendix.

Address reprint requests to Dr. Hoffmann at Massachusetts General Hospital, Cardiac MR PET CT Program, 165 Cambridge St., Suite 400, Boston, MA 02114, or at uhoffmann@partners.org.

 

Read Full Post »