Silence of the limbs: pharmacological symptomatic treatment of intermittent claudication

Several oral "vasoactive" drugs claim to increase walking capacity in patients with intermittent claudication (IC). Naftidrofuryl, cilostazol, buflomedil, and pentoxifylline are the most studied molecules. Although spanning several decades, several studies underlying these claims were not properly designed, underpowered or showed clinically doubtful outcomes. The evidence for these "vasoactive" drugs has always been received with scepticism, creating the need for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This brief review discusses the benefit-risk assessment of vasoactive drugs, by applying a systematic review to evaluate randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Oral naftidrofuryl and cilostazol have an acceptable safety profile as well as sustained evidence (documented by Cochrane analyses) of increased walking capacity. Subsequently, these drugs entered recommendations for peripheral arterial disease (PAD). In contrast, buflomedil and pentoxifylline have limited and/or doubtful evidence to increase walking capacity. Moreover, there were safety concerns about the narrow therapeutic range of buflomedil. Most other "vasoactive" drugs were either inappropriately or insufficiently tested or showed no significant if not negative effects on IC. "Vasoactive" drugs are no substitutes for lifestyle or exercise therapy but are adjuvant treatment to the well-appreciated triad of cardiovascular prevention (antiplatelet agents, statins and ACE-inhibitors), of which statins in their own right have documented claims to significantly increase walking capacity. "Vasoactive" drugs may have a place in the pharmacological management of symptomatic PAD in addition to the basic cardiovascular pharmacotherapy, when revascularization is not indicated, when exercise therapy is not feasible or when there is still insufficient benefit

The relationship between glycaemic variability and cardiovascular autonomic dysfunction in patients with type 1 diabetes : a systematic review

Rigorous glycaemic control-reflected by low HbA1c goals-is of the utmost importance in the prevention and management of complications in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). However, previous studies suggested that short-term glycaemic variability (GV) is also important to consider as excessive glucose fluctuations may have an additional impact on the development of diabetic complications. The potential relationship between GV and the risk of cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy (CAN), a clinical expression of cardiovascular autonomic dysfunction, is of increasing interest. This systematic review aimed to summarize existing evidence concerning the relationship between GV and cardiovascular autonomic dysfunction in T1DM. An electronic database search of Medline (PubMed), Web of Science and Embase was performed up to October 2019. There were no limits concerning year of publication. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Six studies (four cross-sectional and two prospective cohorts) were included. Methodological quality of the studies varied from level C to A2. Two studies examined the association between GV and heart rate variability (HRV), and both found significant negative correlations. Regarding cardiovascular autonomic reflex tests (CARTs), two studies did not, while two other studies did find significant associations between GV parameters and CART scores. However, associations were attenuated after adjusting for covariates such as HbA1c, age and disease duration. In conclusion, this systematic review found some preliminary evidence supporting an association between GV and cardiovascular autonomic dysfunction in T1DM. Hence, uncertainty remains whether high GV can independently contribute to the onset or progression of CAN. The heterogeneity in the methodological approach made it difficult to compare different studies. Future studies should therefore use uniformly evaluated continuous glucose monitoring-derived parameters of GV, while standardized assessment of HRV, CARTs and other potential cardiac autonomic function parameters is needed for an unambiguous definition of CAN

Long-term comparative effectiveness and safety of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban in patients with atrial fibrillation:A nationwide cohort study

Background: Although non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are recommended over vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in atrial fibrillation (AF) management, direct long-term head-to-head comparisons are lacking. Therefore, their risk-benefit profiles were investigated compared to VKAs and between NOACs. Methods: AF patients initiating anticoagulation between 2013–2019 were identified in Belgian nationwide data. Inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox regression was used to investigate effectiveness and safety outcomes and were additionally stratified by NOAC dose. Results: Among 254,478 AF patients (328,796 person-years of follow-up), NOACs were associated with significantly lower risks of stroke or systemic embolism (stroke/SE) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.64–0.72)), all-cause mortality (HR 0.76, 95%CI (0.74–0.79)), major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding (MB/CRNMB) (HR 0.94, 95%CI (0.91–0.98)) and intracranial hemorrhage (HR 0.73, 95%CI (0.66–0.79)), but non-significantly different risks of myocardial infarction, gastrointestinal and urogenital bleeding compared to VKAs. Despite similar stroke/SE risks, dabigatran and apixaban were associated with significantly lower MB/CRNMB risks compared to rivaroxaban (HR 0.86, 95%CI (0.83–0.90); HR 0.86, 95%CI (0.83–0.89), respectively) and edoxaban (HR 0.91, 95%CI (0.83–0.99); HR 0.86, 95%CI (0.81–0.91), respectively), and apixaban with significantly lower major bleeding risks compared to dabigatran (HR 0.86, 95%CI (0.80–0.92)) and edoxaban (HR 0.79, 95%CI (0.72–0.86)). However, higher mortality risks were observed in some risk groups including with apixaban in patients with diabetes or concomitantly using digoxin compared to dabigatran and edoxaban, respectively. Conclusion: NOACs had better long-term risk-benefit profiles than VKAs. While effectiveness was comparable, apixaban was overall associated with a more favorable safety profile followed by dabigatran