American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs最新文献

Background

Metformin and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have demonstrated cardiovascular benefits but their comparative effects on mortality in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) are unknown. Hence, we evaluated and compared lifetime benefits arising from metformin or SGLT2 inhibitors in T2DM patients with CVD.

Materials and Methods

Studies published in the PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases before 28 October 2023 were retrieved. Treatment effects of metformin against US FDA-approved SGLT2 inhibitors in T2DM patients with CVD were evaluated and lifetime gains in event-free survival were estimated from our primary endpoints of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Risk ratios were derived to assess their impact on secondary outcomes such as major adverse cardiovascular events and hospitalizations for heart failure.

Results

Overall, 14 studies were included. Five studies published Kaplan–Meier curves for the primary outcome of all-cause mortality. Individual participant data were reconstructed from these Kaplan–Meier curves, from which we conducted our two-stage meta-analysis. Participants receiving metformin and SGLT2 inhibitors experienced a reduction in the risk for all-cause mortality as compared with those not taking metformin and placebo. However, participants receiving SGLT2 inhibitors had a higher all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.308, 95% confidence interval 1.103–1.550) versus metformin. Treatment with metformin was estimated to offer an additional 23.26 months of survival free from all-cause mortality versus 23.04 months with SGLT2 inhibitors.

Conclusions

In patients with T2DM and CVD, metformin and SGLT2 inhibitors were associated with substantially lower all-cause mortality rates and slightly longer life expectancies than in patients without. Metformin presented an advantage over SGLT2 inhibitors in reducing all-cause mortality.

Background

Landmark clinical trials have expended the indications for the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), but contemporary data on usage and expenditure patterns are lacking.

Objective

This study aimed to assess annual trends in oral anticoagulant (OAC) utilization and expenditure across the United States (US) from 2014 to 2020.

Methods

We utilized the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) to study the trends of use and expenditures of warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban between 2014 and 2020 in the US. Survey respondents reported OAC use within the past year, which was verified against pharmacy records. Payment information was obtained from the respondent’s pharmacy and was categorized as third-party or self/out-of-pocket. Potential indications and medical conditions of interest for OAC therapy were identified from respondent-reported medical conditions. We estimated the national number of OAC users and total expenditures across age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, and medical condition subgroups. Trends of OAC users’ characteristics, expenditure, and number of prescriptions were evaluated using the Mann–Kendall test for trends.

Results

Between 2014 and 2020, the number of warfarin users decreased from 3.8 million (70% of all OAC users) to 2.2 million (p = 0.007) [29% of all OAC users], while the number of DOAC users increased from 1.6 million (30% of all OAC users) to 5.4 million (p = 0.003) [70% of all OAC users]. The total expenditure of OACs in the US increased from $3.4 billion in 2014 to $17.8 billion in 2020 (p = 0.003), which was driven by the increase in DOAC expenditures (p = 0.003).

Conclusions

DOACs have replaced warfarin as the preferred OAC in the US. The increased costs associated with DOAC use may decline when generic formulations are approved.

Aim

Statin therapy is considered the gold standard for treating hypercholesterolemia. This updated meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety of a low/moderate-intensity statin in combination with ezetimibe compared with high-intensity statin monotherapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Methods

A systematic search of two databases (PubMed and Cochrane CENTRAL) was conducted from inception to January 2023 and a total of 21 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were identified and included in the analysis. Data were pooled using Hedges’s g and a Mantel–Haenszel random-effects model to derive standard mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (Cis). The primary outcome studied was the effect of these treatments on lipid parameters and safety events.

Results

The results revealed that combination therapy was more effective in reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels (SMD= − 0.41; CI − 0.63 to − 0.19; P = 0.0002). There was no significant change in the levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), triglyceride (TG), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), Apo A1, or Apo B. The safety of these treatments was assessed by the following markers alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and creatine phosphokinase (CK), and a significant difference was only observed in CK (SMD: − 0.81; CI − 1.52 to − 0.10; P = 0.02).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis demonstrated that the use of low/moderate-intensity statin combination therapy significantly reduced LDL-C levels compared with high-intensity statin monotherapy, making it preferable for patients with related risks. However, further trials are encouraged to evaluate potential adverse effects associated with combined therapy.

Background

Data are limited regarding guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) treatment patterns in patients with worsening heart failure (HF).

Methods

We used administrative claims databases in Germany and the USA to conduct a retrospective cohort study of patients with worsening HF. Two cohorts of patients with prevalent HF and a HF hospitalization (HFH) from 2016 to 2019, alive at discharge (N = 75,140 USA; N = 47,003 Germany) were identified. Index date was the first HFH during the study period. One-year HF rehospitalization and mortality rates were calculated and a composite endpoint of both outcomes assessed using Kaplan–Meier estimation. We evaluated HF medication patterns in the 6 months before and after the index date. New users of a HF medication (at discharge/after index HFH) were followed for 1 year to evaluate persistence (no treatment gaps > 2 months)

Results

One-year HF rehospitalization rates were 36.2% (USA) and 47.7% (Germany). One year mortality rates were 30.0% (USA) and 23.0% (Germany), and the composite endpoint (mortality/HF rehospitalization) was reached in 55.1 % (USA) and 56.6% (Germany). Kaplan–Meier plots showed the risk for the composite endpoint was high in the early post discharge period. Comparison of patterns pre- and postindex HFH showed some increase in use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), and triple therapy; use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor/ angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) plus beta-blockers remained constant/slightly declined; < 20% patients received triple therapy (ACE inhibitor/ARB plus beta-blocker plus MRA). A third of patients were new users; 1 year persistence rates were often low.

Conclusions

Morbidity, mortality, and rehospitalization risk is high among patients with worsening HF; uptake and continuation of GDMT is suboptimal.

In this comprehensive state-of-the-art review, we provide an evidence-based analysis of current drug therapies for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in the acute and chronic phases with concurrent hypertension. Additionally, we explore the latest developments and emerging evidence on the efficacy, safety, and clinical outcomes of common and novel drug treatments in the management of HFpEF with concurrent hypertension. During the acute phase of HFpEF, intravenous diuretics, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), and vasodilators are pivotal, while in the chronic phase, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers have proven effective in enhancing clinical outcomes. However, the use of calcium channel blockers in HFpEF with hypertension should be approached with caution, owing to their potential negative inotropic effects. We also explored emerging drug therapies for HFpEF, such as sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) stimulators, novel MRAs, and ivabradine. Notably, SGLT2 inhibitors have shown promise in reducing heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular mortality in patients with HFpEF, regardless of their diabetic status. Additionally, ARNI and sGC stimulators have demonstrated potential in improving symptoms, functional capacity, and quality of life. Nonetheless, additional research is necessary to pinpoint optimal treatment strategies for HFpEF with concurrent hypertension. Furthermore, long-term studies are essential to assess the durability and sustained benefits of emerging drug therapies. Identification of novel targets and mechanisms underlying HFpEF pathophysiology will pave the way for innovative drug development approaches in the management of HFpEF with concurrent hypertension.

Aims

Digoxin has been used in the treatment for heart failure for centuries, but the role of this drug in the modern era is controversial. A particular concern is the recent observational findings suggesting an increase in all-cause mortality with digoxin, although such observations suffer from biased results since these studies usually do not provide adequate compensation for the severity of disease. Using a nationwide registry database, we aimed to investigate whether digoxin is associated with 1-year all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure irrespective of phenotype.

Methods

A total of 1014 out of 1054 patients in the registry, of whom 110 patients were on digoxin, were included in the study. Multivariable adjustments were done and propensity scores were calculated for various prognostic indicators, including signs and symptoms of heart failure and functional capacity. Crude mortality, mortality adjusted for covariates, mortality in the propensity score-matched cohort, and Bayesian factors (BFs) were analyzed.

Results

Crude 1-year mortality rate did not differ between patients on and off digoxin (17.3% vs 20.1%, log-rank p = 0.46), and digoxin was not related to mortality following multivariable adjustment (hazard ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.539–1.402, p = 0.57). Similarly, all-cause mortality was similar in 220 propensity-score adjusted patients (17.3% vs 20.0%, log-rank p = 0.55). On Bayesian analyses, there was moderate to strong evidence suggesting a lack of difference between in unmatched cohort (BF₁₀ 0.091) and weak-to-moderate evidence in the matched cohort (BF₁₀ 0.296).

Conclusions

In this nationwide cohort, we did not find any evidence for an increased 1-year mortality in heart failure patients on digoxin.

The delayed titration of guideline-directed drug therapy (GDMT) is a complex event influenced by multiple factors that often result in poor prognosis for patients with heart failure (HF). Individualized adjustments in GDMT titration may be necessary based on patient characteristics, and every clinician is responsible for promptly initiating GDMT and titrating it appropriately within the patient’s tolerance range. This review examines the current challenges in GDMT implementation and scrutinizes titration considerations within distinct subsets of HF patients, with the overarching goal of enhancing the adoption and effectiveness of GDMT. The authors also underscore the significance of establishing a novel management strategy that integrates cardiologists, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and patients as a unified team that can contribute to the improved promotion and implementation of GDMT.

Background

The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) provided a focused update to the 2021 Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure, now providing a 1A recommendation for intravenous iron in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and iron deficiency (ID). However, the findings from randomized controlled trials (RCT) are mixed. This systematic review of RCTs aims to provide an update and synthesize the evidence addressing the association of intravenous iron with patient-based outcomes in patients with HFrEF and ID.

Methods

Any RCT evaluating the effect of intravenous iron in patients with HFrEF and ID was eligible for inclusion. A complete search of the EMBASE and PubMed databases was conducted from inception until 15 September 2023. The primary outcome was the composite of the quality of life (QoL) questionnaires, while the secondary outcomes included first heart failure (HF) hospitalizations and all-cause mortality. Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.

Results

Of the 1035 references, 15 RCTs enrolling 6649 patients were included in this study. Intravenous iron was associated with significant improvement in the composite of QoL (standardized mean difference − 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] − 2.24 to − 0.48; p = 0.002), a significant reduction in first HF hospitalizations (hazard ratio [HR] 0.73, 95% CI 0.56–0.95; p = 0.02), and with no change in all-cause mortality (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79–1.03; p = 0.12). The certainty of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low.

Conclusion

Intravenous iron is possibly associated with improved QoL and reduced HF hospitalizations, without impacting all-cause mortality. These findings not only support the use of intravenous iron in patients with HFrEF but also emphasize the need for well-designed and executed RCTs with granular outcome reporting and powered sufficiently to address the impact of intravenous iron on mortality in patients with HFrEF and ID.

Registration

PROSPERO identifier number CRD42023389