Explore the vast range of titles available.

Acute myocardial infarction has traditionally been divided into ST elevation or non-ST elevation myocardial infarction; however, therapies are similar between the two, and the overall management of acute myocardial infarction can be reviewed for simplicity. Acute myocardial infarction remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, despite substantial improvements in prognosis over the past decade. The progress is a result of several major trends, including improvements in risk stratification, more widespread use of an invasive strategy, implementation of care delivery systems prioritising immediate revascularisation through percutaneous coronary intervention (or fibrinolysis), advances in antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants, and greater use of secondary prevention strategies such as statins. This seminar discusses the important topics of the pathophysiology, epidemiological trends, and modern management of acute myocardial infarction, focusing on the recent advances in reperfusion strategies and pharmacological treatment approaches.

The term acute coronary syndrome (ACS) refers to any group of clinical symptoms compatible with acute myocardial ischemia and includes unstable angina (UA), non—ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). These high-risk manifestations of coronary atherosclerosis are important causes of the use of emergency medical care and hospitalization in the United States. A quick but thorough assessment of the patient's history and findings on physical examination, electrocardiography, radiologic studies, and cardiac biomarker tests permit accurate diagnosis and aid in early risk stratification, which is essential for guiding treatment. High-risk patients with UA/NSTEMI are often treated with an early invasive strategy involving cardiac catheterization and prompt revascularization of viable myocardium at risk. Clinical outcomes can be optimized by revascularization coupled with aggressive medical therapy that includes anti-ischemic, antiplatelet, anticoagulant, and lipid-lowering drugs. Evidence-based guidelines provide recommendations for the management of ACS; however, therapeutic approaches to the management of ACS continue to evolve at a rapid pace driven by a multitude of large-scale randomized controlled trials. Thus, clinicians are frequently faced with the problem of determining which drug or therapeutic strategy will achieve the best results. This article summarizes the evidence and provides the clinician with the latest information about the pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and risk stratification of ACS and the management of UA/NSTEMI.

In this trial, patients with an acute coronary syndrome within the previous 10 days were randomly assigned to simvastatin plus either ezetimibe or placebo. At a median of 6 years, the rate of cardiovascular events was modestly but significantly lower with simvastatin–ezetimibe. The use of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins) reduces both low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels and the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with and those without cardiovascular disease. 1 – 4 Intensive statin therapy, as compared with moderate-dose statin therapy, incrementally lowers LDL cholesterol levels and rates of nonfatal cardiovascular events. 5 – 9 Because of the residual risk of recurrent cardiovascular events and safety concerns associated with high-dose statin therapy, 10 additional lipid-modifying therapies have been sought. 11 – 14 Ezetimibe targets the Niemann–Pick C1–like 1 (NPC1L1) protein, thereby reducing absorption of cholesterol from the intestine. 15 , 16 When added to statins, ezetimibe reduces LDL cholesterol . . .

The vascular location of an enzyme accounts for the cardiovascular hazards associated with its inhibition. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used by millions of people worldwide to reduce pain and inflammation. They exert their pharmacologic effect by inhibiting the cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1) and COX-2 enzymes, thereby blocking conversion of arachidonic acid to prostaglandin E 2 (PGE 2 ) and PGI 2 (prostacyclin), which mediate pain (see the figure). However, because COX enzymes exist throughout the body, NSAIDs have many physiological effects, including complications, such as development of gastric ulcers and gastrointestinal bleeding. In 2004, the blockbuster drug rofecoxib (sold commercially as Vioxx) was withdrawn from the U.S. market when a study linked a selective COX-2 inhibitor with a higher rate of heart attack and stroke. However, studies on COX inhibitors have shown varying risk profiles, fueling a debate about their association with cardiovascular risk. A recent study by Yu et al. ( 1 ) now provides a biochemical explanation for the increased cardiovascular risk associated with COX-2 inhibitors, closing this part of the long-standing discussion.

Genetic variants have been associated with the risk of coronary heart disease. In this study, we tested whether or not a composite of these variants could ascertain the risk of both incident and recurrent coronary heart disease events and identify those individuals who derive greater clinical benefit from statin therapy. A community-based cohort study (the Malmo Diet and Cancer Study) and four randomised controlled trials of both primary prevention (JUPITER and ASCOT) and secondary prevention (CARE and PROVE IT-TIMI 22) with statin therapy, comprising a total of 48 421 individuals and 3477 events, were included in these analyses. We studied the association of a genetic risk score based on 27 genetic variants with incident or recurrent coronary heart disease, adjusting for traditional clinical risk factors. We then investigated the relative and absolute risk reductions in coronary heart disease events with statin therapy stratified by genetic risk. We combined data from the different studies using a meta-analysis. When individuals were divided into low (quintile 1), intermediate (quintiles 2–4), and high (quintile 5) genetic risk categories, a significant gradient in risk for incident or recurrent coronary heart disease was shown. Compared with the low genetic risk category, the multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio for coronary heart disease for the intermediate genetic risk category was 1·34 (95% CI 1·22–1·47, p<0·0001) and that for the high genetic risk category was 1·72 (1·55–1·92, p<0·0001). In terms of the benefit of statin therapy in the four randomised trials, we noted a significant gradient (p=0·0277) of increasing relative risk reductions across the low (13%), intermediate (29%), and high (48%) genetic risk categories. Similarly, we noted greater absolute risk reductions in those individuals in higher genetic risk categories (p=0·0101), resulting in a roughly threefold decrease in the number needed to treat to prevent one coronary heart disease event in the primary prevention trials. Specifically, in the primary prevention trials, the number needed to treat to prevent one such event in 10 years was 66 in people at low genetic risk, 42 in those at intermediate genetic risk, and 25 in those at high genetic risk in JUPITER, and 57, 47, and 20, respectively, in ASCOT. A genetic risk score identified individuals at increased risk for both incident and recurrent coronary heart disease events. People with the highest burden of genetic risk derived the largest relative and absolute clinical benefit from statin therapy. National Institutes of Health.

The ODYSSEY COMBO I study (http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01644175) evaluated efficacy and safety of alirocumab as add-on therapy to stable maximally tolerated daily statin with or without other lipid-lowering therapy in high cardiovascular risk patients with suboptimally controlled hypercholesterolemia. This multicenter, phase 3, randomized (2:1 alirocumab vs placebo), double-blind, 52-week trial enrolled 316 patients with established coronary heart disease or coronary heart disease risk equivalents and hypercholesterolemia. Alirocumab (75 mg every 2 weeks [Q2W]) or placebo Q2W was self-administered subcutaneously via 1 mL prefilled pen. The alirocumab dose was increased to 150 mg Q2W (also 1 mL) at week 12 if week 8 low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) was ≥70 mg/dL. The primary efficacy end point was percent change in LDL-C from baseline to week 24 (intention-to-treat analysis). At week 24, estimated mean (95% CI) changes in LDL-C from baseline were −48.2% (−52.0% to −44.4%) and −2.3% (−7.6% to 3.1%) for alirocumab and placebo, respectively, an estimated mean (95% CI) difference of −45.9% (−52.5% to −39.3%) (P < .0001). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <70 mg/dL was achieved by 75% alirocumab versus 9% placebo patients at week 24. At week 12, 83.2% of evaluable alirocumab-treated patients remained on 75-mg Q2W. Treatment-emergent adverse events were comparable between groups. Alirocumab treatment achieved a significantly greater reduction in LDL-C and allowed a greater proportion of patients to achieve LDL-C goals, versus placebo after 24 weeks in high cardiovascular risk patients with suboptimally controlled hypercholesterolemia at baseline despite receiving maximally tolerated statin with or without other lipid-lowering therapy. The frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events and study medication discontinuations were generally comparable between treatment groups.

Higher growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) concentrations are associated with cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV morbidity and mortality. However, information on associations between GDF-15 and the risk of specific CV and non-CV events in stable coronary heart disease (CHD) patients is limited. In 14 577 patients with stable CHD participating in the Stabilization of Atherosclerotic Plaque by Initiation of Darapladib Therapy Trial (STABILITY), GDF-15 and other prognostic biomarkers (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, high-sensitivity troponin T, cystatin C, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein) were measured. In adjusted Cox regression models, the associations between GDF-15 and the composite CV end point [CV death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke], as well as other CV and non-CV events, were assessed. The median concentration (interquartile range) of GDF-15 at baseline was 1253 (915-1827) ng/L. The hazard ratio for the composite end point for the highest compared to the lowest quartile of GDF-15 was 1.8 (95% CI, 1.5-2.2); for CV death, 2.63 (1.9-3.6); for sudden death, 3.06 (1.9-4.8); for heart failure (HF) death, 4.3 (1.3-14); for cancer death, 2.5 (1.3-4.7); for hospitalization for HF, 5.8 (3.2-10); for MI 1.4 (95% CI, 1.1-1.9); and for stroke, 1.8 (95% CI, 1.1-2.8). After adjustment for other prognostic biomarkers, GDF-15 remained significantly associated with all outcomes except for MI. In stable CHD, GDF-15 was independently associated with CV, non-CV, and cancer mortality, as well as with MI and stroke. When also adjusting for other prognostic biomarkers, the associations to all fatal and nonfatal events were maintained except for MI. Information on GDF-15, therefore, might be helpful when assessing the risk of adverse outcomes in patients with stable CHD. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00799903.

Variation in and irreversibility of platelet inhibition with clopidogrel has led to controversy about its optimum dose and timing of administration in patients with acute coronary syndromes. We compared ticagrelor, a more potent reversible P2Y12 inhibitor with clopidogrel in such patients. At randomisation, an invasive strategy was planned for 13 408 (72·0%) of 18 624 patients hospitalised for acute coronary syndromes (with or without ST elevation). In a double-blind, double-dummy study, patients were randomly assigned in a one-to-one ratio to ticagrelor and placebo (180 mg loading dose followed by 90 mg twice a day), or to clopidogrel and placebo (300–600 mg loading dose or continuation with maintenance dose followed by 75 mg per day) for 6–12 months. All patients were given aspirin. The primary composite endpoint was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00391872. 6732 patients were assigned to ticagrelor and 6676 to clopidogrel. The primary composite endpoint occurred in fewer patients in the ticagrelor group than in the clopidogrel group (569 [event rate at 360 days 9·0%] vs 668 [10·7%], hazard ratio 0·84, 95% CI 0·75–0·94; p=0·0025). There was no difference between clopidogrel and ticagrelor groups in the rates of total major bleeding (691 [11·6%] vs 689 [11·5%], 0·99 [0·89–1·10]; p=0·8803) or severe bleeding, as defined according to the Global Use of Strategies To Open occluded coronary arteries, (198 [3·2%] vs 185 [2·9%], 0·91 [0·74–1·12]; p=0·3785). Ticagrelor seems to be a better option than clopidogrel for patients with acute coronary syndromes for whom an early invasive strategy is planned. AstraZeneca.

Purpose of review The purpose of this review is to analyze and discuss the most recent data on in hospital prescription of Proprotein Convertase Subtilisin/Kexin 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Recent findings Recent randomized clinical trials (RTCs) have demonstrated a beneficial effect of monoclonal antibodies (mAb) PCSK9i prescription in patients with ACS on rapid reduction of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and on coronary atherosclerosis assessed by intracoronary imaging. Additionally, the safety profile of mAb PCSK9i was confirmed in all RTCs. Summary Available RCTs show the effectiveness and rapid achievement of LDL-C levels according to American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology guidelines for ACS patients. However, RCTs addressing cardiovascular outcomes of PCSK9i in-hospital initiation in ACS patients are currently ongoing.

Background Antiplatelet therapy is essential treatment for acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Current therapies, however, have important limitations affecting their clinical success. Ticagrelor, the first reversible oral P2Y12 receptor antagonist, provides faster, greater, and more consistent adenosine diphosphate–receptor inhibition than clopidogrel. The phase III PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial is designed to test the hypothesis that ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel will result in a lower risk of recurrent thrombotic events in a broad patient population with ACS. Methods PLATO is an international, randomized, double-blind, event-driven trial involving >18,000 patients hospitalized for ST-elevation ACS with scheduled primary percutaneous coronary intervention or for non–ST-elevation ACS. After loading doses of ticagrelor 180 mg or clopidogrel 300 mg in a double-blind, double-dummy fashion (with provision for additional 300 mg clopidogrel at percutaneous coronary intervention), patients will receive ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily or clopidogrel 75 mg once daily for 6 to 12 months on top of acetylsalicylic acid. The primary efficacy end point is time to first occurrence of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The primary safety variable is PLATO-defined major bleeding. An extensive substudy program will explore the pathophysiology of ACS, indicators of prognosis and response to treatment, mechanisms of effect and safety of the study medications, health economics, and quality of life. Conclusion The PLATO study will provide a pivotal comparison of the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor with those of clopidogrel in ACS patients, together with extensive information on treatment outcomes in different subsets of ACS in a broad patient population.