Thrombosis and Vascular Inflammation in Diabetes: Mechanisms and Potential Therapeutic Targets

Cardiovascular disease remains the main cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with diabetes. The risk of vascular ischemia is increased in this population and outcome following an event is inferior compared to individuals with normal glucose metabolism. The reasons for the adverse vascular profile in diabetes are related to a combination of more extensive atherosclerotic disease coupled with an enhanced thrombotic environment. Long-term measures to halt the accelerated atherosclerotic process in diabetes have only partially addressed vascular pathology, while long-term antithrombotic management remains largely similar to individuals without diabetes. We address in this review the pathophysiological mechanisms responsible for atherosclerosis with special emphasis on diabetes-related pathways. We also cover the enhanced thrombotic milieu, characterized by increased platelet activation, raised activity of procoagulant proteins together with compromised function of the fibrinolytic system. Potential new therapeutic targets to reduce the risk of atherothrombosis in diabetes are explored, including alternative use of existing therapies. Special emphasis is placed on diabetes-specific therapeutic targets that have the potential to reduce vascular risk while keeping an acceptable clinical side effect profile. It is now generally acknowledged that diabetes is not a single clinical entity but a continuum of various stages of the condition with each having a different vascular risk. Therefore, we propose that future therapies aiming to reduce vascular risk in diabetes require a stratified approach with each group having a “stage-specific” vascular management strategy. This “individualized care” in diabetes may prove to be essential to improve vascular outcome in this high risk population

Antithrombotic therapy in diabetes: which, when, and for how long?

Cardiovascular disease remains the main cause of mortality in individuals with diabetes mellitus (DM) and also results in significant morbidity. Premature and more aggressive atherosclerotic disease, coupled with an enhanced thrombotic environment, contributes to the high vascular risk in individuals with DM. This prothrombotic milieu is due to increased platelet activity together with impaired fibrinolysis secondary to quantitative and qualitative changes in coagulation factors. However, management strategies to reduce thrombosis risk remain largely similar in individuals with and without DM. The current review covers the latest in the field of antithrombotic management in DM. The role of primary vascular prevention is discussed together with options for secondary prevention following an ischaemic event in different clinical scenarios including coronary, cerebrovascular, and peripheral artery diseases. Antiplatelet therapy combinations as well as combination of antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents are examined in both the acute phase and long term, including management of individuals with sinus rhythm and those with atrial fibrillation. The difficulties in tailoring therapy according to the variable atherothrombotic risk in different individuals are emphasized, in addition to the varying risk within an individual secondary to DM duration, presence of complications and predisposition to bleeding events. This review provides the reader with an up-to-date guide for antithrombotic management of individuals with DM and highlights gaps in knowledge that represent areas for future research, aiming to improve clinical outcome in this high-risk population

The prognostic utility of tests of platelet function for the detection of ‘aspirin resistance’ in patients with established cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease : a systematic review and economic evaluation

Background: The use of aspirin is well established for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. However, a proportion of patients suffer repeat cardiovascular events despite being prescribed aspirin treatment. It is uncertain whether or not this is due to an inherent inability of aspirin to sufficiently modify platelet activity. This report aims to investigate whether or not insufficient platelet function inhibition by aspirin (‘aspirin resistance‘), as defined using platelet function tests (PFTs), is linked to the occurrence of adverse clinical outcomes, and further, whether or not patients at risk of future adverse clinical events can be identified through PFTs. Objectives: To review systematically the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence regarding the association between PFT designation of ‘aspirin resistance’ and the risk of adverse clinical outcome(s) in patients prescribed aspirin therapy. To undertake exploratory model-based cost-effectiveness analysis on the use of PFTs. Data sources: Bibliographic databases (e.g. MEDLINE from inception and EMBASE from 1980), conference proceedings and ongoing trial registries up to April 2012. Methods: Standard systematic review methods were used for identifying clinical and cost studies. A risk-of-bias assessment tool was adapted from checklists for prognostic and diagnostic studies. (Un)adjusted odds and hazard ratios for the association between ‘aspirin resistance’, for different PFTs, and clinical outcomes are presented; however, heterogeneity between studies precluded pooling of results. A speculative economic model of a PFT and change of therapy strategy was developed. Results: One hundred and eight relevant studies using a variety of PFTs, 58 in patients on aspirin monotherapy, were analysed in detail. Results indicated that some PFTs may have some prognostic utility, i.e. a trend for more clinical events to be associated with groups classified as ‘aspirin resistant’. Methodological and clinical heterogeneity prevented a quantitative summary of prognostic effect. Study-level effect sizes were generally small and absolute outcome risk was not substantially different between ‘aspirin resistant’ and ‘aspirin sensitive’ designations. No studies on the cost-effectiveness of PFTs for ‘aspirin resistance’ were identified. Based on assumptions of PFTs being able to accurately identify patients at high risk of clinical events and such patients benefiting from treatment modification, the economic model found that a test–treat strategy was likely to be cost-effective. However, neither assumption is currently evidence based. Limitations: Poor or incomplete reporting of studies suggests a potentially large volume of inaccessible data. Analyses were confined to studies on patients prescribed aspirin as sole antiplatelet therapy at the time of PFT. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity across studies precluded meta-analysis. Given the lack of robust data the economic modelling was speculative. Conclusions: Although evidence indicates that some PFTs may have some prognostic value, methodological and clinical heterogeneity between studies and different approaches to analyses create confusion and inconsistency in prognostic results, and prevented a quantitative summary of their prognostic effect. Protocol-driven and adequately powered primary studies are needed, using standardised methods of measurements to evaluate the prognostic ability of each test in the same population(s), and ideally presenting individual patient data. For any PFT to inform individual risk prediction, it will likely need to be considered in combination with other prognostic factors, within a prognostic model