Failure to Launch

The importance of inflammation and inflammatory pathways in atherosclerotic disease and acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is well established. The success of statin therapy rests not only on potently reducing levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, but also on the many beneficial, pleiotropic effects statin therapy has on various inflammatory mechanisms in atherosclerotic disease, from reducing endothelial dysfunction to attenuating levels of serum C-reactive protein. Due to the growing awareness of the importance of inflammation in ACS, investigators have attempted to develop novel therapies against known markers of inflammation for several decades. Targeted pathways have ranged from inhibiting C5 cleavage with a high-affinity monoclonal antibody against C5 to inhibiting the activation of the p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling cascades. In each of these instances, despite promising early preclinical and mechanistic studies and phase 2 trials suggesting a potential benefit in reducing post-MI complications or restenosis, these novel therapies have failed to show benefits during large, phase 3 clinical outcomes trials. This review discusses several examples of novel anti-inflammatory therapies that failed to show significant improvement on clinical outcomes when tested in large, randomized trials and highlights potential explanations for why targeted therapies against known markers of inflammation in ACS have failed to launch

Clinical Practice Patterns in Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support for Shock in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) Registry.

BACKGROUND: Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices provide hemodynamic assistance for shock refractory to pharmacological treatment. Most registries have focused on single devices or specific etiologies of shock, limiting data regarding overall practice patterns with temporary MCS in cardiac intensive care units. METHODS: The CCCTN (Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network) is a multicenter network of tertiary CICUs in North America. Between September 2017 and September 2018, each center (n=16) contributed a 2-month snapshot of consecutive medical CICU admissions. RESULTS: Of the 270 admissions using temporary MCS, 33% had acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (CS), 31% had CS not related to acute myocardial infarction, 11% had mixed shock, and 22% had an indication other than shock. Among all 585 admissions with CS or mixed shock, 34% used temporary MCS during the CICU stay with substantial variation between centers (range: 17%-50%). The most common temporary MCS devices were intraaortic balloon pumps (72%), Impella (17%), and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (11%), although intraaortic balloon pump use also varied between centers (range: 40%-100%). Patients managed with intraaortic balloon pump versus other forms of MCS (advanced MCS) had lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores and less severe metabolic derangements. Illness severity was similar at high- versus low-MCS utilizing centers and at centers with more advanced MCS use. CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variation in the use of temporary MCS among patients with shock in tertiary CICUs. While hospital-level variation in temporary MCS device selection is not explained by differences in illness severity, patient-level variation appears to be related, at least in part, to illness severity