European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy最新文献

Obesity and underweight are a growing health problem worldwide and a challenge for clinicians concerning antithrombotic therapy, due to the associated risks of thrombosis and/or bleeding. This clinical consensus statement updates a previous one published in 2018, by reviewing the most recent evidence on antithrombotic drugs based on body size categories according to the World Health Organization classification. The document focuses mostly on individuals at the extremes of body weight, i.e. underweight and moderate-to-morbid obesity who require antithrombotic drugs, according to current guidelines, for the treatment or prevention of cardiovascular diseases or venous thromboembolism. Managing antithrombotic therapy or thromboprophylaxis in these individuals is challenging, due to profound changes in body composition, metabolism and organ function, altered drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, as well as weak or no evidence from clinical trials. The document also includes artificial intelligence simulations derived from in silico pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic models, which can mimic the pharmacokinetic changes and help identify optimal regimens of antithrombotic drugs for severely underweight or severely obese individuals. Further, bariatric surgery in morbidly obese subjects is frequently performed worldwide. Bariatric surgery causes specific and additional changes in metabolism and gastrointestinal anatomy, depending on the type of the procedure, which can also impact the pharmacokinetics of antithrombotic drugs and their management. Based on existing literature, the document provides consensus statements on optimising antithrombotic drug management for underweight and all classes of obese patients, while highlighting the current gaps in knowledge in these complex clinical settings, which require personalized medicine and precision pharmacology.

Aims: In the Randomized Evaluation of Decreased Usage of Beta-Blockers after Acute Myocardial Infarction (REDUCE-AMI) study, long-term beta-blocker use in patients after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction demonstrated no effect on death or cardiovascular outcomes. The aim of this prespecified substudy was to investigate effects of beta-blockers on self-reported quality of life and well-being.

Methods and results: From this parallel-group, open-label, registry-based randomized clinical trial, EQ-5D, and World Health Organization well-being index-5 (WHO-5) questionnaires were obtained at 6-10 weeks and 11-13 months after AMI in 4080 and 806 patients, respectively. We report results from intention-to-treat and on-treatment analyses for the overall population and relevant subgroups using Wilcoxon rank sum test and adjusted ordinal regression analyses. Of the 4080 individuals reporting EQ-5D (median age 64 years, 22% female), 2023 were randomized to beta-blockers. The main outcome, median EQ-5D index score, was 0.94 [interquartile range (IQR) 0.88, 0.97] in the beta-blocker group, and 0.94 (IQR 0.88, 0.97) in the no-beta-blocker group 6-10 weeks after AMI, OR 1.00 [95% CI 0.89-1.13; P > 0.9]. After 11-13 months, results remained unchanged. Findings were robust in on-treatment analyses and across relevant subgroups. Secondary outcomes, EQ-VAS and WHO-5 index score, confirmed these results.

Conclusion: Among patients after AMI with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, self-reported quality of life and well-being was not significantly different in individuals randomized to routine long-term beta-blocker therapy as compared to individuals with no beta-blocker use. These results appear consistent regardless of adherence to randomized treatment and across subgroups which emphasizes the need for a careful individual risk-benefit evaluation prior to initiation of beta-blocker treatment.

Aims: We aimed to analyse serious cardiac adverse drug reactions to COVID-19 vaccines from the Europe-wide EudraVigilance database.

Methods and results: In this retrospective, cross-sectional study, the EudraVigilance database was searched to identify suspected serious cardiac postvaccination adverse drug reactions to COVID-19 vaccines. This data was coupled with the number of total vaccine doses administered in the European Economic Area for Comirnaty (Pfizer BioNTech), Spikevax (Moderna), Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca), Jcovden (Janssen), Nuvaxovid (Novavax), products, available from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control "Vaccine Tracker" database. The analysis included 772,228,309 administered doses of eligible vaccines from the "Vaccine Tracker" database and 86,051 eligible records of cardiac adverse drug reactions from the EudraVigilance database.The frequency of most of the investigated adverse drug reactions was very rare (<1/10,000 i.e. <100/1,000,000 doses). The lowest risk of any serious cardiac adverse drug reactions was noticed for vaccination with Comirnaty (135.5 per million doses), while Spikevax, Jcovden, Vaxzevria and Nuvaxovid were characterised by higher risk (respectively, 140.9, 194.8, 313.6 and 1065.2 per million doses). The most common complications of vaccinations included syncope, arrhythmia, tachycardia, palpitations, angina pectoris, hypertension, myocarditis, thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.

Conclusions: The risk of serious cardiac adverse drug reactions to COVID-19 vaccines is low and the benefit of active immunisation against that disease seems to outweigh the potential risk of serious postvaccination cardiac adverse drug reactions.

Aims: Early identification of patients with increased bleeding risk increases the possibility to individualize antithrombotic treatment. We validated the PRECISE-DAPT score, originally developed to estimate bleeding risk in patients on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) patients.

Methods and results: All patients who underwent first time, isolated CABG in Sweden 2009-2020 and survived until discharge were included. The four-item PRECISE-DAPT score, based on age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, preoperative haemoglobin concentration, and previous spontaneous bleeding, was calculated in patients discharged on DAPT (n = 6 838), or antiplatelet monotherapy (n = 15 406). High bleeding risk was defined as a score ≥ 25 in accordance with previous studies and major bleeding as hospitalization due to bleeding. Associations were assessed by C-statistics and Cox regression models.Major bleeding occurred during the first postoperative year in 130 patients (1.9%) in the DAPT group, and in 197 patients (1.3%) in the monotherapy group. The score identified 32.9% of the patients in the DAPT group and 38.2% in monotherapy groups as having high bleeding risk. The area under the ROC-curve for the score was 0.67 (95%CI 0.62-0.72) for DAPT and 0.71 (0.67-0.74) for monotherapy. The hazard ratio for high bleeding risk vs. very low risk was 4.14 (2.07-8.26) for DAPT patients, and 4.95 (2.61-9.39) for monotherapy patients, both p < 0.001.

Conclusions: The PRECISE-DAPT identifies patients with increased risk for major bleeding after discharge following CABG with moderate accuracy. The accuracy is comparable to what previously has been reported for patients after PCI.

Background and aims: High bleeding risk (HBR) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) subtypes are critical in determining bleeding and cardiovascular event risk after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Methods and results: In 4476 ACS patients enrolled in the STOPDAPT-3, where the no-aspirin and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) strategies after PCI were randomly compared, the pre-specified subgroup analyses were conducted based on HBR/non-HBR and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)/non-ST-segment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS). The co-primary bleeding endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 or 5, and the co-primary cardiovascular endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, or ischaemic stroke at 1 month. Irrespective of the subgroups, the effect of no-aspirin compared with DAPT was not significant for the bleeding endpoint (HBR [N = 1803]: 7.27 and 7.91%, hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65-1.28; non-HBR [N = 2673]: 3.40 and 3.65%, HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.62-1.39; Pinteraction = 0.94; STEMI [N = 2553]: 6.58 and 6.56%, HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.74-1.35; NSTE-ACS [N = 1923]: 2.94 and 3.64%, HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49-1.32; Pinteraction = 0.45), and for the cardiovascular endpoint (HBR: 7.87 and 5.75%, HR 1.39, 95% CI 0.97-1.99; non-HBR: 2.56 and 2.67%, HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.60-1.53; Pinteraction = 0.22; STEMI: 6.07 and 5.46%, HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.81-1.54; NSTE-ACS: 3.03 and 1.71%, HR 1.78, 95% CI 0.97-3.27; Pinteraction = 0.18).

Conclusion: In patients with ACS undergoing PCI, the no-aspirin strategy compared with the DAPT strategy failed to reduce major bleeding events irrespective of HBR and ACS subtypes. The numerical excess risk of the no-aspirin strategy relative to the DAPT strategy for cardiovascular events was observed in patients with HBR and in patients with NSTE-ACS.