An evidence-based review of edoxaban and its role in stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia in the elderly. It is responsible for significant morbidity and mortality from cardioembolic complications like stroke. As a result, atrial fibrillation patients are risk-stratified using the CHADS2 or CHA2DS2-VASc scoring systems. Those at intermediate-to-high risk have traditionally been treated with therapeutic anticoagulation with warfarin for stroke prevention. Although effective, warfarin use is fraught with multiple concerns, such as a narrow therapeutic window, drug-drug and drug-food interactions, and excessive bleeding. Novel oral anticoagulant agents have recently become available as viable alternatives for warfarin therapy. Direct thrombin inhibitor dabigatran and factor Xa inhibitors like rivaroxaban and apixaban have already been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Edoxaban is the latest oral direct factor Xa inhibitor studied in the largest novel oral anticoagulant trial so far: ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48. Treatment with a 30 mg or 60 mg daily dose of edoxaban was found to be noninferior to dose-adjusted warfarin in reducing the rate of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, with a lower incidence of bleeding complications and cardiovascular deaths. Edoxaban was recently reviewed by an FDA advisory committee and recommended as a stroke-prophylaxis agent. Once approved, it promises to provide another useful alternative to warfarin therapy

Olmesartan-based monotherapy vs combination therapy in hypertension: A meta-analysis based on age and chronic kidney disease status.

Antihypertensive monotherapy is often insufficient to control blood pressure (BP). Several recent guidelines advocate for initial combination drug therapy in many patients. This meta-analysis of seven randomized, double-blind studies (N = 5888) evaluated 8 weeks of olmesartan medoxomil (OM)-based single-pill dual-combination therapy (OM+amlodipine/azelnidipine or hydrochlorothiazide) vs OM monotherapy in adults with hypertension. BP-lowering efficacy, goal achievement, and adverse events were assessed in the full cohort and subgroups (elderly/nonelderly and patients with and without chronic kidney disease). In the full cohort at week 8, for dual therapy vs monotherapy, seated BP was lower (137.5/86.1 mm Hg vs 144.4/89.9 mm Hg), and the mean change from baseline in BP and BP goal achievement (<140/90 mm Hg) were greater (-22.7/-15.0 mm Hg vs -16.0/-11.3 mm Hg and 51.2% vs 34.7%, respectively). Adverse events were similar between groups. BP-lowering efficacy among subgroups mirrored the findings in the full cohort whereby changes were significantly greater following OM dual-combination therapy vs OM monotherapy

Reducing morbidity and mortality in high risk patients with statins

Residual coronary heart disease remains a significant problem even after adequate statin therapy for cardiovascular risk reduction as currently recommended by the Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP-III) of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP). This is particularly true for the high risk patients as defined by ATP-III that includes those patients who have a greater than 20% 10-year risk of adverse cardiac events. For such patients the current goal of a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-cholesterol) maintenance level of ≤100 mg/dL plasma appears to be suboptimal. Accumulating data from several recent randomized studies of more aggressive LDL-cholesterol reduction to levels below 70 mg/dL in the high risk patients favor acceptance of such a new lower target for LDL-cholesterol using more intensive statin therapy which would affect the treatment strategy for patients with coronary heart disease pre-percutaneous intervention, metabolic syndrome, diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, cerebrovascular disease and chronic kidney disease

Improvement in Renal Function and Reduction in Serum Uric Acid with Intensive Statin Therapy in Older Patients: A Post Hoc Analysis of the SAGE Trial.

BackgroundImprovement in renal function and decreases in serum uric acid (SUA) have been reported following prolonged high-intensity statin (HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor) therapy. This post hoc analysis of the SAGE trial examined the effect of intensive versus less intensive statin therapy on renal function, safety, and laboratory parameters, including SUA, in elderly coronary artery disease (CAD) patients (65-85 years) with or without chronic kidney disease (CKD).MethodsPatients were randomized to atorvastatin 80 mg/day or pravastatin 40 mg/day and treated for 12 months. Patients were stratified using Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs) in CKD (eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) and non-CKD populations.ResultsOf the 893 patients randomized, 858 had complete renal data and 418 of 858 (49%) had CKD (99% Stage 3). Over 12 months, eGFR increased with atorvastatin and remained stable with pravastatin (+2.38 vs. +0.18 mL/min/1.73 m(2), respectively; p < 0.0001). MDRD eGFR improved significantly in both CKD treatment arms; however, the increased eGFR in patients without CKD was significantly greater with atorvastatin (+2.08 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) than with pravastatin (-1.04 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). Modest reductions in SUA were observed in both treatment arms, but a greater fall occurred with atorvastatin than with pravastatin (-0.52 vs. -0.09 mg/dL, p < 0.0001). Change in SUA correlated negatively with changes in eGFR and positively with changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Reports of myalgia were rare (3.6% CKD; 5.7% non-CKD), and there were no episodes of rhabdomyolysis. Elevated serum alanine and aspartate transaminase to >3 times the upper limit of normal occurred in 4.4% of atorvastatin- and 0.2% of pravastatin-treated patients.ConclusionIntensive management of dyslipidemia in older patients with stable coronary heart disease may have beneficial effects on renal function and SUA

Low use of statins and other coronary secondary prevention therapies in primary and secondary care in India.

ObjectiveTo determine the frequency of use of pharmacotherapy with aspirin, beta blocker, statin, and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor in patients with stable coronary heart disease (CHD) among physicians at different levels of health care in Rajasthan state, India.MethodsPhysicians practicing at tertiary hospitals and clinics at tertiary, secondary and primary levels were contacted. Prescriptions of CHD patients were audited and descriptive statistics reported.ResultsWe evaluated 2,993 prescriptions (tertiary hospital discharge 711, tertiary 688, secondary 1,306, and primary 288). Use of aspirin was in 2,713 (91%) of prescriptions, beta blockers 2,057 (69%), ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) 2,471 (82%), and statins 2,059 (69%). Any one of these drugs was prescribed in 2,991 (100%), any two in 2,880 (96%), any three in 1,740 (58%), and all four in 1,062 (35.5%) (P < 0.001). As compared to tertiary hospital, prescriptions at tertiary, secondary, and primary levels were lower: aspirin (96% vs 95%, 91%, 67%), beta blockers (80% vs 62%, 66%, 70%), statins (87% vs 82%, 62%, 21%): two drugs (98% vs 96%, 98%, 85%), three drugs (75% vs 58%, 55%, 28%), or four drugs (54% vs 44%, 28%, 7%) (P < 0.01). Use of ACE inhibitors/ARBs was similar while nitrates (43% vs 23%, 43%, 70%), dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (12% vs 15%, 30%, 47%), and multivitamins (6% vs 26%, 37%, 47%) use was more in secondary and primary care.ConclusionsThere is suboptimal use of various evidence-based drugs (aspirin, beta blockers, ACE inhibitors, and statins) for secondary prevention of CHD in India

Low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol: current status and future strategies for management

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is the foremost cause of death and disability in the Western world, and it is rapidly becoming so in the developing nations. Even though the use of statin therapy aiming at the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) has significantly reduced cardiovascular events and mortality, substantial residual cardiac events still occur in those being treated to the currently recommended targets. In fact, residual risk is also seen in those who are treated “aggressively” such as the “high risk” patients so defined by the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III). Consequently, one must look for the predictors of risk beyond LDL reduction. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL) is the next frontier. The protectiveness of elevated HDL against atherosclerosis is well described in the literature. HDL subdues several atherogenic processes, such as oxidation, inflammation, cell proliferation and thrombosis. It also helps mobilize the excess LDL via reverse cholesterol transport. Low levels of HDL have been shown to be independent predictors of risk. Thus, therapies to raise the HDL hold promise for additional cardiac risk reduction. In this regard, several randomized trials have recently tested this hypothesis, especially in patients at high risk. In addition to the use of aggressive lifestyle modification, clinical outcomes have been measured following augmentation of HDL levels with various treatment modalities, including aggressive statin therapy, combination therapy with fibrates and niacin, and direct HDL-raising drug treatments. These data for low HDL as an independent risk factor and as the new treatment target are reviewed in this paper