Explore the vast range of titles available.

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) and thyroid dysfunction are two of the most prevailing disorders in the world that are closely interlinked. Actions of thyroid hormones are mediated via thyroid receptors present in the myocardium and the vascular tissue. Primary mechanism that links thyroid dysfunction with CVD is the modification of cardiovascular risk factors (dyslipidemia, blood pressure, coagulation parameters, etc.) resulting in endothelial and left ventricular systolic and diastolic dysfunction. Both overt and subclinical hyperthyroidism and hypothyroidism may cause adverse alterations in cardiac function. Hyperthyroidism gives rise to palpitation, atrial fibrillation, systolic hypertension, and heart failure, whereas hypothyroidism increases diastolic hypertension, pericardial effusion, and the risk of ischemic heart disease via altering lipid and coagulation parameters. Early recognition and treatment of thyroid dysfunction may prevent adverse cardiovascular events in patients with or without pre-existing CVD. Certain cardiac conditions and medications can cause alterations in thyroid function that may predispose an individual to higher morbidity and mortality. In certain situations, thyroid dysfunction treatment may have cardiovascular benefits. This study deals with the interplay between cardiovascular and thyroid dysfunctions associated with clinical implications and management strategies.

Background Unhealthy eating and lack of exercise during adolescence culminated into earlier onset and increasing burden of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) worldwide. Among urban Indian adolescents, prevalence of these risk factors of CVD seemed to be high, but data regarding their pattern and predictors was limited. To address this dearth of information, a survey was conducted among urban adolescent school-students in Kolkata, a highly populated metro city in eastern India. Methods During January–June, 2014, 1755 students of 9th-grade were recruited through cluster (schools) random sampling. Informed consents from parents and assents from adolescents were collected. Information on socio-demographics, CVD-related knowledge and perception along with eating and exercise patterns were collected with an internally validated structured questionnaire. Descriptive and regression analyses were performed in SAS-9.3.2. Results Among 1652 participants (response rate = 94.1%), about 44% had poor overall knowledge about CVD, 24% perceived themselves as overweight and 60% considered their general health as good. Only 18% perceived their future CVD-risk and 29% were engaged in regular moderate-to-vigorous exercise. While 55% skipped meals regularly, 90% frequently consumed street-foods and 54% demonstrated overall poor eating habits. Males were more likely to engage in moderate-to-vigorous exercise [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 3.40(95% confidence interval = 2.55–4.54)] while students of higher SES were less likely [AOR = 0.59(0.37–0.94)]. Males and those having good CVD-related knowledge were more likely to exercise at least 1 h/day [AOR = 7.77(4.61–13.07) and 2.90(1.46–5.78) respectively]. Those who perceived their future CVD-risk, skipped meals more [2.04(1.28–3.25)] while Males skipped them less [AOR = 0.62(0.42–0.93)]. Subjects from middle class ate street-foods less frequently [AOR = 0.45(0.24–0.85)]. Relatively older students and those belonging to higher SES were less likely to demonstrate good eating habits [AOR = 0.70(0.56–0.89) and 0.23(0.11–0.47) respectively]. A large knowledge-practice gap was evident as students with good CVD-related knowledge were less likely to have good eating habits [AOR = 0.55(0.32–0.94)]. Conclusions CVD-related knowledge as well as eating and exercise habits were quite poor among adolescent school-students of Kolkata. Additionally, there was a large knowledge-practice gap. Multi-component educational interventions targeting behavioral betterment seemed necessary for these adolescents to improve their CVD-related knowledge, along with appropriate translation of knowledge into exercise and eating practices to minimize future risk of CVDs.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a known predisposing factor for heart failure (HF). The growing burden of these two conditions and their impact on health of the individual and on society in general needs urgent attention from the health care professionals. Availability of multiple treatment choices for managing T2DM and HF may make therapeutic decisions more complex for clinicians. Recent cardiovascular outcome trials of antidiabetic drugs have added very robust evidence to effectively manage subjects with this dual condition. This consensus statement provides the prevalence trends and the impact of this dual burden on patients. In addition, it concisely narrates the types of HF, the different treatment algorithms, and recommendations for physicians to comprehensively manage such patients.

Vildagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor is effective in reducing HbA1c levels in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) when administered as monotherapy, dual or triple combination therapy. In India, Vildagliptin is commonly prescribed in T2DM patients because it reduces mean amplitude of glycemic excursion (MAGE), has lower risk of hypoglycemia and is weight neutral. Early combination therapy with vildagliptin and metformin is effective and well-tolerated in patients with T2DM, regardless of age or ethnicity. In view of already existing data on vildagliptin and the latest emerging clinical evidence, a group of endocrinologists, diabetologists and cardiologists convened for an expert group meeting to discuss the role and various combinations of vildagliptin in T2DM management. This practical document aims to guide Physicians and Specialists regarding the different available strengths and formulations of vildagliptin for the initiation and intensification of T2DM therapy.

Purpose: The rising prevalence of heart failure (HF) in midlife years in Indians is posing an economic challenge. Sacubitril/valsartan demonstrated a significant risk reduction of cardiovascular deaths by 20% and HF rehospitalizations by 21% versus enalapril but has a higher drug cost. High cost is an impediment and poses a challenge for healthcare stakeholders to choose interventions that are more efficacious. We developed an intuitive evidence-based cost-consequence analysis (CCA) comparing sacubitril/valsartan with enalapril in chronic HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methodr. Authors adopted HF outcome probabilities for mortality and hospitalizations from the PARADIGM-HF trial. Economic (drug acquisition and hospitalization costs, earning potential) and clinical [length of stay (LOS), rates of mortality and hospitalizations] inputs were obtained from the published literature. The tool enables the user to input patient numbers, health setting (public/private), time horizon (6-27 months), number of hospitalizations (1.42-5), LOS (5.3-9 days), and wages per day €5.61-€28.03 (INR500-INR2,500). Results'. Hypothetical HF patient with a daily wages of €22.42 (INR 2,000) spent €420.31 (INR 37,490) for sacubitril/valsartan at a private set-up to realize an annual cost savings of €485.34 (INR 43,290). While the other patient with a lower daily wage of €11.21, at a public set-up had to spend €43.09 (INR 3,843) more to realize benefits of mortality, hospitalization, and productivity savings due to sacubitril/valsartan. Conclusion: Sacubitril/valsartan has the potential to improve clinical as well as economic outcomes by generating substantial cost-savings to minimize budget deficit. CCA could support healthcare stakeholders in selecting an appropriate treatment strategy for chronic HFrEF patients.

Lipid-lowering is a central theme in the management of patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH), with statins being currently used as the first-line lipid-lowering agent (LLAs). Bempedoic acid (BA) has been recently approved for lipid management in ASCVD/HeFH patients. This expert opinion paper brings out the essential concept to assess the current place of BA in the Indian population. Here we highlight that the majority of the patients with clinical ASCVD may not be receiving the optimal dose of statin, thereby failing to achieve their lipid targets. The addition of BA to statin results in a significant reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) along with substantial reductions in non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), apolipoprotein B (ApoB), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) levels. For patients who do not achieve LDL-C targets, BA can be an effective add-on alternative to choose among non-statin LLAs. BA is a good choice for statin-intolerant cases, especially in combination with ezetimibe. Given the lack of effect of worsening hyperglycemia or any increase in the occurrence of new-onset diabetes, BA can be used without hesitation in patients with diabetes. The small risk of hyperuricemia could be mitigated with appropriate patient selection and monitoring of serum uric acid levels in patients at high risk of hyperuricemia. We believe BA is an excellent non-statin therapy that is efficacious, well-tolerated, and cost-effective for lipid management in ASCVD, HeFH, and statin-intolerant patients in India.

Background The effectiveness of amlodipine has been reported in clinical trials in India. However, real-world data on the effectiveness of amlodipine in India is limited. Objective To provide real-world evidence regarding the effectiveness of amlodipine as monotherapy or in combination with other antihypertensive drugs (AHDs) in Indian patients with essential hypertension. Methods Electronic medical record data of adult patients who were diagnosed with essential hypertension (≥ 140/90 mmHg) and were prescribed amlodipine as monotherapy or add-on therapy were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were classified based on the number of AHD classes prescribed on initiation of amlodipine. Change in systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure from baseline was the primary endpoint. Evaluation of proportion of patients who achieved treatment goals as per 2018 European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension guidelines was the secondary endpoint. Readings were obtained before initiating amlodipine and after at least a month of therapy with amlodipine. Results Among the 462 included patients, the majority (90.7%) were on amlodipine monotherapy or amlodipine + 1AHD. Mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) change in the amlodipine monotherapy group was: SBP (− 12.1 [− 14.9, − 9.3] mmHg) and DBP (− 7.5 [− 8.9, − 6.1] mmHg) and mean (95% CI) change in the amlodipine + 1AHD group was: SBP (− 17.8 [− 21.0, − 14.6] mmHg) and DBP (− 9.5 [− 11.0, − 8.0] mmHg) ( P  < 0.001 for all). SBP and DBP goals were achieved by 31.4% and 42.9% of patients on amlodipine monotherapy and by 38.9% and 51.8% of patients on amlodipine + 1AHD, respectively. Among patients aged ≤ 45 years, mean (95% CI) change in the amlodipine monotherapy group was: SBP (− 11.7 [− 16.0, − 7.4] mmHg; P  < 0.001) and DBP (− 7.2 [− 9.7, − 4.7] mmHg; P  < 0.001) and mean (95% CI) change in the amlodipine + 1AHD group was: SBP (− 14.6 [− 21.9, − 7.3] mmHg; P  < 0.05) and DBP (− 10.6 [− 14.8, − 6.4] mmHg; P  < 0.01). SBP and DBP goals were achieved by 35.4% and 33.8% of patients on amlodipine monotherapy and by 48.0% and 56.0% of patients on amlodipine + 1AHD, respectively. Among patients aged ≥ 65 years, mean (95% CI) change in the amlodipine monotherapy group was: SBP (− 13.9 [− 20.2, − 7.6] mmHg; P  < 0.01) and DBP (− 8.5 [− 11.4, − 5.7] mmHg; P  < 0.001) and mean (95% CI) change in the amlodipine + 1AHD group was: SBP (− 22.4 [− − 28.8, − 16.0] mmHg; P  < 0.001) and DBP (− 10.8 [− 14.0, − 7.6] mmHg; P  < 0.001). SBP and DBP goals were achieved by 25.5% and 13.7% of patients on amlodipine monotherapy and by 29.8% and 14.0% of patients on amlodipine + 1AHD. Conclusion Amlodipine prescribed as monotherapy or add-on therapy during routine clinical practice significantly reduced BP in ≤ 45- and ≥ 65-year-old Indian patients with mild to moderate hypertension, emphasizing that amlodipine may be a good candidate for BP control in Indian patients with essential hypertension in these age groups.

Objective: The present systematic review assessed the efficacy of peri-procedurally administered trimetazidine in the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) in patients undergoing coronary interventions with contrast agents. Methods: We performed a systematic literature review of articles published in PubMed and Google Scholar by 7 December 2023 and included articles from the last 15 years that evaluated the efficacy of trimetazidine in preventing CIN in cardiac patients undergoing coronary intervention. Results: After title/abstract and full-text screening, this systematic review included 9 randomized controlled trials (N = 2158 patients) with two groups: Trimetazidine (60–70 mg/day 24 to 48 h before and up to 72 h after the procedure) with hydration and the control group with only hydration. A total of 234/2158 patients developed CIN (Incidence rate [IR], 10.8%) as per the CIN definition of the Contrast Media Safety Committee of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology. The incidence of CIN in the trimetazidine vs. control group was 6.4% (69/1083) vs. 15.4% (165/1075), and the odds ratio (95% CI) was 0.3753 (0.279–0.504). Conclusions: In conclusion, the trimetazidine group had a lower incidence of CIN. Trimetazidine offers a reno-protective effect and helps in reducing the CIN incidence in patients undergoing cardiac intervention. Peri-procedure administration of trimetazidine significantly decreases the risk of CIN in patients despite comorbidities.

The present United States and European treatment guidelines recommend that antihypertensive therapy be initiated with a combination of agents from different classes to facilitate the achievement of control of blood pressure (BP). This prospective, randomized, open-label study was conducted at 3 tertiary hospitals in India to evaluate the effects of combination therapy with an angiotensin receptor blocker and a calcium antagonist on office BP and central hemodynamic parameters in patients with untreated hypertension or uncontrolled BP (>130/>80 mm Hg) during treatment with antihypertensive monotherapy. Patients were randomized to treatment with telmisartan 40 mg/day + amlodipine 5 mg/day or telmisartan 40 mg/day + cilnidipine 10 mg/day. Change from baseline to 8 weeks of treatment was assessed for seated office BP, ambulatory BP monitoring, and seated central hemodynamics (central BP, aortic augmentation index, central aortic augmentation pressure, and pulse wave velocity). A total of 94 of 96 enrolled patients completed the study. From baseline to 8 weeks a significant decrease was observed in both telmisartan + amlodipine and telmisartan + cilnidipine groups for mean BP (148.0 ± 12.80 to 124.0 ± 10.4 and 144.5 ± 10.2 to 123.0 ± 10.0 mm Hg, respectively; both p <0.001); in only telmisartan + amlodipine group for mean central aortic systolic and diastolic BP (131.1 ± 19.1 to 119.7 ± 14.9 mm Hg [p <0.001] and 93.3 ± 12.0 to 89.2 ± 14.6 mm Hg [p = 0.0008], respectively) and for central aortic pulse wave velocity (7.6 ± 1.4 to 7.2 ± 1.3 m/s, p = 0.0011); in only telmisartan + cilnidipine group for aortic augmentation index (27.5 ± 14.6 to 22.3 ± 12.2; p = 0.0178). Heart rate was unchanged in both treatment groups. Combination therapy with an angiotensin receptor blocker and a calcium antagonist effectively reduced BP to below the new <130/80 mm Hg target and had favorable effects on central hemodynamics.

Background: During the 2024 annual meeting in London, The European Society of Cardiology released new guidelines (GLs) on chronic coronary syndromes (CCSs) and simultaneously published them in the European Heart Journal. Method: A few experts on the topic from Europe, South America, India, and Asia, who attended the presentation and the Question and Answer sections, met virtually to comment on the GLs after carefully reading the 123-page document. Result: There is a consensus that the presented GLs are a comprehensive, up-to-date, clear document of the available data on how to diagnose and treat CCSs and a definite step forward compared to all previous GLs. Of particular value are (a) the efforts to link both diagnosis and treatment to the underlying pathophysiology with the recognition that not all the ischaemic episodes are the same; (b) the decision to adopt the graphic of the so-called “Diamond Approach”, although its spirit that no antianginal drug is superior to another is not fully adopted; and (c) the innovative way it condenses and expresses the relevant messages with eye-catching illustrations. Conclusions: The present article summarises and comments on the 123-page GLs, highlighting strengths and weaknesses according to the thoughts of the authors.