Expanding the horizons in unstable coronary artery disease: introduction

Item does not contain fulltext3 p

Evaluating the place of low-molecular-weight heparin in the management of acute coronary syndromes. A panel discussion with audience participation.

Item does not contain fulltex

Prevalence of autoantibodies against contractile proteins in coronary artery disease and their clinical implications.

In this initial study, we found that autoantibodies against actin and myosin were present during and after an acute coronary syndrome. Moreover, they correlated with persistent troponin-I elevation at follow-up, and with late myocardial infarction

A comparison of the blood pressure changes of lumiracoxib with those of ibuprofen and naproxen.

Contains fulltext : 70565.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)The 52-week Therapeutic Arthritis Research and Gastrointestinal Event Trial (TARGET) investigated the gastrointestinal and cardiovascular safety profile of lumiracoxib 400 mg once daily compared with 2 traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs): ibuprofen 800 mg 3 times daily and naproxen 500 mg twice daily. Data from TARGET were analyzed to examine the effect of lumiracoxib compared with ibuprofen and naproxen on blood pressure (BP), incidence of de novo and aggravated hypertension, prespecified edema events, and congestive heart failure. Lumiracoxib resulted in smaller changes in BP as early as week 4. Least-squares mean change from baseline at week 4 for systolic BP was +0.57 mm Hg with lumiracoxib compared with +3.14 mm Hg with ibuprofen (P<.0001) and +0.43 with lumiracoxib compared with +1.80 mm Hg with naproxen (P<.0001). In conclusion, the use of lumiracoxib and traditional NSAIDs results in differing BP changes; these might be of clinical relevance

Management strategies in unstable coronary artery disease: current problems and future perspectives.

Item does not contain fulltex

Cardiovascular outcomes in high risk patients with osteoarthritis treated with ibuprofen, naproxen or lumiracoxib.

Contains fulltext : 52995.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that both selective cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors and non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) increase the risk of cardiovascular events. However, evidence from prospective studies of currently available COX-2 inhibitors and non-selective NSAIDs is lacking in patients at high cardiovascular risk who are taking aspirin. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cardiovascular outcomes in high risk patients with osteoarthritis treated with ibuprofen, naproxen or lumiracoxib. METHODS: The Therapeutic Arthritis Research and Gastrointestinal Event Trial (TARGET) of 18 325 patients with osteoarthritis comprised two parallel substudies, comparing lumiracoxib (COX-2 inhibitor) with either ibuprofen or naproxen. A post hoc analysis by baseline cardiovascular risk, treatment assignment, and low-dose aspirin use was performed. The primary composite end point was cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and stroke at 1 year; a secondary end point was the development of congestive heart failure (CHF). RESULTS: In high risk patients among aspirin users, patients in the ibuprofen substudy had more primary events with ibuprofen than lumiracoxib (2.14% vs 0.25%, p = 0.038), whereas in the naproxen substudy rates were similar for naproxen and lumiracoxib (1.58% vs 1.48%, p = 0.899). High risk patients not taking aspirin had fewer primary events with naproxen than with lumiracoxib (0% vs 1.57%, p = 0.027), but not for ibuprofen versus lumiracoxib (0.92% vs 0.80%, p = 0.920). Overall, CHF developed more often with ibuprofen than lumiracoxib (1.28% vs 0.14%; p = 0.031), whereas no difference existed between naproxen and lumiracoxib. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that ibuprofen may confer an increased risk of thrombotic and CHF events relative to lumiracoxib among aspirin users at high cardiovascular risk. The study indicates that naproxen may be associated with lower risk relative to lumiracoxib among non-aspirin users. This study is subject to inherent limitations, and therefore should be interpreted as a hypothesis-generating study