| 1. |
- Nelson, Adam J., et al.
(författare)
-
Cardiovascular Effects of GnRH Antagonists Compared With Agonists in Prostate Cancer : A Systematic Review
- 2023
-
Ingår i: JACC: CardioOncology. - 2666-0873. ; 5:5, s. 613-624
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Androgen deprivation therapy is the cornerstone of treatment for patients with advanced prostate cancer. Meta-analysis of small, oncology-focused trials suggest gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists may be associated with fewer adverse cardiovascular outcomes compared with GnRH agonists. Objectives: This study sought to determine whether GnRH antagonists were associated with fewer major adverse cardiovascular events compared with GnRH agonists. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for all prospective, randomized trials comparing GnRH antagonists with agonists. The primary outcome was a major adverse cardiovascular event as defined by the following standardized Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities terms: “myocardial infarction,” “central nervous system hemorrhages and cerebrovascular conditions,” and all-cause mortality. Bayesian meta-analysis models with random effects were fitted. Results: A total of 11 eligible studies of a maximum duration of 3 to 36 months (median = 12 months) enrolling 4,248 participants were included. Only 1 trial used a blinded, adjudicated event process, whereas potential bias persisted in all trials given their open-label design. A total of 152 patients with primary outcome events were observed, 76 of 2,655 (2.9%) in GnRH antagonist-treated participants and 76 of 1,593 (4.8%) in agonist-treated individuals. Compared with GnRH agonists, the pooled OR of GnRH antagonists for the primary endpoint was 0.57 (95% credible interval: 0.37-0.86) and 0.58 (95% credible interval: 0.32-1.08) for all-cause death. Conclusions: Despite the addition of the largest, dedicated cardiovascular outcome trial, the volume and quality of available data to definitively answer this question remain suboptimal. Notwithstanding these limitations, the available data suggest that GnRH antagonists are associated with fewer cardiovascular events, and possibly mortality, compared with GnRH agonists.
|
|
| 2. |
- Capodanno, Davide, et al.
(författare)
-
Dual-pathway inhibition for secondary and tertiary antithrombotic prevention in cardiovascular disease
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Nature Reviews Cardiology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1759-5002 .- 1759-5010. ; 17:4, s. 242-257
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Advances in antiplatelet therapies for patients with cardiovascular disease have improved patient outcomes over time, but the challenge of balancing the risks of ischaemia and bleeding remains substantial. Moreover, many patients with cardiovascular disease have a residual risk of ischaemic events despite receiving antiplatelet therapy. Therefore, novel strategies are needed to prevent clinical events through mechanisms beyond platelet inhibition and with an acceptable associated risk of bleeding. The advent of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants, which attenuate fibrin formation by selective inhibition of factor Xa or thrombin, has renewed the interest in dual-pathway inhibition strategies that combine an antiplatelet agent with an anticoagulant drug. In this Review, we highlight the emerging pharmacological rationale and clinical development of dual-pathway inhibition strategies for the prevention of atherothrombotic events in patients with different manifestations of cardiovascular disease, such as coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease and peripheral artery disease. Many patients with cardiovascular disease have a residual risk of ischaemic events despite receiving antiplatelet therapy. In this Review, Angiolillo and colleagues discuss the pharmacological rationale and clinical development of dual-pathway inhibition strategies for the prevention of atherothrombotic events in patients with cardiovascular disease.
|
|
| 3. |
- Spitzer, Ernest, et al.
(författare)
-
Critical Appraisal of Contemporary Clinical Endpoint Definitions in Coronary Intervention Trials A Guidance Document
- 2019
-
Ingår i: JACC. - : Elsevier. - 1936-8798 .- 1876-7605. ; 12:9, s. 805-819
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- The Academic Research Consortium (ARC) and the Standardized Data Collection for Cardiovascular Trials Initiative have recently published updated clinical and angiographic endpoint definitions for percutaneous coronary intervention trials. The aim of this document is to provide practical guidance to facilitate and harmonize the implementation of those definitions in randomized trials or registries, as well as to foster consistency among independent adjudication committees. The authors compared the ARC-2 and Standardized Data Collection for Cardiovascular Trials Initiative definitions to identify areas of consistency, complex scenarios, and definitions in need of further standardization. Furthermore, the authors compared the fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction with the ARC-2 definition of myocardial infarction. The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions definition of periprocedural myocardial infarction was also compared with the ARC-2 definition and the fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction. An in-depth assessment was done for each individual clinical endpoint to guide clinical investigators on reporting and classifying clinical adverse events. Finally, the authors propose standard streamlined data capture templates for reporting and adjudicating death, myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization, stent or scaffold thrombosis, and bleeding. (c) 2019 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.
|
|
| 4. |
- Valgimigli, Marco, et al.
(författare)
-
Demystifying the Contemporary Role of 12-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Acute Coronary Syndrome
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Circulation. - : American Heart Association. - 0009-7322 .- 1524-4539. ; 150:4, s. 317-335
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- For almost two decades, 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has been the only class I recommendation on DAPT in American and European guidelines, which has resulted in 12-month durations of DAPT therapy being the most frequently implemented in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) across the globe. Twelve-month DAPT was initially grounded in the results of the CURE (Clopidogrel in Unstable Angina to Prevent Recurrent Events) trial, which, by design, studied DAPT versus no DAPT rather than the optimal DAPT duration. The average DAPT duration in this study was 9 months, not 12 months. Subsequent ACS studies, which were not designed to assess DAPT duration, rather its composition (aspirin with prasugrel or ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel) were further interpreted as supportive evidence for 12-month DAPT duration. In these studies, the median DAPT duration was 9 or 15 months for ticagrelor and prasugrel, respectively. Several subsequent studies questioned the 12-month regimen and suggested that DAPT duration should either be fewer than 12 months in patients at high bleeding risk or more than 12 months in patients at high ischemic risk who can safely tolerate the treatment. Bleeding, rather than ischemic risk assessment, has emerged as a treatment modifier for maximizing the net clinical benefit of DAPT, due to excessive bleeding and no clear benefit of prolonged treatment regimens in high bleeding risk patients. Multiple DAPT de-escalation treatment strategies, including switching from prasugrel or ticagrelor to clopidogrel, reducing the dose of prasugrel or ticagrelor, and shortening DAPT duration while maintaining monotherapy with ticagrelor, have been consistently shown to reduce bleeding without increasing fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular or cerebral ischemic risks compared with 12-month DAPT. However, 12-month DAPT remains the only class-I DAPT recommendation for patients with ACS despite the lack of prospectively established evidence, leading to unnecessary and potentially harmful overtreatment in many patients. It is time for clinical practice and guideline recommendations to be updated to reflect the totality of the evidence regarding the optimal DAPT duration in ACS.
|
|
