Oral antiplatelet therapy for atherothrombotic disease: overview of current and emerging treatment options

Clinical presentations of atherothrombotic vascular disease, such as acute coronary syndromes, ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, and symptomatic peripheral arterial disease, are major causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Platelet activation and aggregation play a seminal role in the arterial thrombus formation that precipitates acute manifestations of atherothrombotic disease. As a result, antiplatelet therapy has become the cornerstone of therapy for the prevention and treatment of atherothrombotic disease. Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a P2Y12 adenosine diphosphate (ADP) receptor inhibitor, such as clopidogrel or prasugrel, is the current standard-of-care antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndromes managed with an early invasive strategy. However, these agents are associated with several important clinical limitations, including significant residual risk for ischemic events, bleeding risk, and variability in the degree of platelet inhibition. The residual risk can be attributed to the fact that aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors block only the thromboxane A2 and ADP platelet activation pathways but do not affect the other pathways that lead to thrombosis, such as the protease-activated receptor-1 pathway stimulated by thrombin, the most potent platelet agonist. Bleeding risk associated with aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors can be explained by their inhibitory effects on the thromboxane A2 and ADP pathways, which are critical for protective hemostasis. Interpatient variability in the degree of platelet inhibition in response to antiplatelet therapy may have a genetic component and contribute to poor clinical outcomes. These considerations underscore the clinical need for therapies with a novel mechanism of action that may reduce ischemic events without increasing the bleeding risk

Comparison of Metoprolol Versus Carvedilol After Acute Myocardial Infarction

•Beta-blockers are often prescribed after-MI, but no specific one has been favored.•This study compares metoprolol versus carvedilol in an after-MI cohort.•The study showed similar overall survival between carvedilol and metoprolol.•Improved survival with carvedilol vs metoprolol was noted in the ejection fraction ≤40% subgroup. Beta-blockers are typically prescribed following myocardial infarction (MI), but no specific beta-blocker is recommended. Of 7,057 patients enrolled in the OBTAIN multi-center registry of patients with acute MI, 4142 were discharged on metoprolol and 1487 on carvedilol. Beta-blocker dose was indexed to the target daily dose used in randomized clinical trials (metoprolol-200 mg; carvedilol-50 mg), reported as %. Beta-blocker dosage groups were >0% to12.5% (n = 1,428), >12.5% to 25% (n = 2113), >25% to 50% (n = 1,392), and >50% (n = 696). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate 3-year survival. Correction for baseline differences was achieved by multivariable adjustment. Patients treated with carvedilol were older (64.4 vs 63.3 years) and had more comorbidities: hypertension, diabetes, prior MI, congestive heart failure, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, and a longer length of stay. Mean doses for metoprolol and carvedilol did not significantly differ (37.2 ± 27.8% and 35.8 ± 31.0%, respectively). The 3-year survival estimates were 88.2% and 83.5% for metoprolol and carvedilol, respectively, with an unadjusted HR = 0.72 (p 12.5% to 25% dose category had improved survival compared with other dose categories. Subgroup analysis of patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%, showed worse survival with metoprolol versus carvedilol (adjusted HR = 1.281; 95% CI: 1.024 to 1.602, p = 0.03). In patients with left ventricular ejection fraction >40%, there were no differences in survival with carvedilol versus metoprolol. In conclusion, overall survival after acute MI was similar for patients treated with metoprolol or carvedilol, but may be superior for carvedilol in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%

Utility of the ACE Inhibitor Captopril in Mitigating Radiation-associated Pulmonary Toxicity in Lung Cancer: Results From NRG Oncology RTOG 0123

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of NRG Oncology Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0123 was to test the ability of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor captopril to alter the incidence of pulmonary damage after radiation therapy for lung cancer; secondary objectives included analyzing pulmonary cytokine expression, quality of life, and the long-term effects of captopril. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible patients included stage II-IIIB non-small cell lung cancer, stage I central non-small cell lung cancer, or limited-stage small cell. Patients who met eligibility for randomization at the end of radiotherapy received either captopril or standard care for 1 year. The captopril was to be escalated to 50 mg three times a day. Primary endpoint was incidence of grade 2+ radiation-induced pulmonary toxicity in the first year. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients were accrued between June 2003 and August 2007. Given the low accrual rate, the study was closed early. No significant safety issues were encountered. Eight patients were ineligible for registration or withdrew consent before randomization and 40 patients were not randomized postradiation. Major reasons for nonrandomization included patients\u27 refusal and physician preference. Of the 33 randomized patients, 20 were analyzable (13 observation, 7 captopril). The incidence of grade 2+ pulmonary toxicity attributable to radiation therapy was 23% (3/13) in the observation arm and 14% (1/7) in the captopril arm. CONCLUSIONS: Despite significant resources and multiple amendments, NRG Oncology Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0123 was unable to test the hypothesis that captopril mitigates radiation-induced pulmonary toxicity. It did show the safety of such an approach and the use of newer angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors started during radiotherapy may solve the accrual problems