The CAPTURE trial

Use of Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors in the Modern Era of Acute Coronary Syndrome Management: A Survey of Cardiovascular Clinical Pharmacists

Evidence for the use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) in the management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is from the era of either limited utilization of P2Y12 inhibitors or prior the introduction of more potent P2Y12 inhibitors. This leads to divergent opinions regarding the role of these agents in contemporary practice. This study sought the opinion of cardiovascular clinical pharmacists regarding the role of GPIs in the modern of ACS management. A 13-question survey was created and distributed from June 2018 to July 2018 via the American College of Clinical Pharmacy's Cardiology Practice and Research Network e-mail listserv. The survey consisted of questions regarding the ideal use of GPIs in ACS management, preferred agent selection, and rational for selection. All results were analyzed with descriptive statistics. There were a total 69 responses of 1175 (response rate 5.9%). The majority felt there was still a role for GPI in accordance to the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (65.2%), with eptifibatide being preferred (55.1%). For non-ST-segment myocardial infraction (NSTEMI), only 49.3% felt role of GPI was in line with the ACC/AHA guidelines, but a notable number of respondents felt GPIs were only indicated in NSTEMI patients for bailout or thrombotic complications (18.8%). A majority (56.5%) felt GPIs could be used as an alternative for cangrelor when bridging. The decision to use one agent over another were efficacy data, cost, and pharmacokinetic profile.

Adaptive Signature Design- review of the biomarker guided adaptive phase -III controlled design

Genomics having a profound impact on oncology drug development necessitates the use of genomic signatures for therapeutic strategy and emerging medicine proposals. Since its advent in the arena of clinical trials biomarker-related predictive methods for the identification and selection of patient subgroups, with optimal treatment response, are widely used. Genetic signatures which are accountable for the differential response to treatments are experimentally recognizable and analytically validated in phase II stage of clinical trials. The availability of robust and validated biomarkers in phase III is limited. Hence, the development of a clinical trial design without the availability of biomarker identity for treatment-sensitive patients becomes indispensable. Adaptive Signature Design (ASD) is a design procedure of developing and validating a predictive classifier (diagnostic testing strategy) when the signature of subjects responding differentially to treatment is remote in the context of the study. This review provides a detailed methodology and statistical background of this pioneering design developed by Freidlin and Simon (2005). In addition, it concentrates on the advances in ASD regarding statistical issues such as predictive assay identification, classification techniques, statistical methods, subgroup search, choice of differentially expressed genes, and multiplicity correction. The statistical methodology behind the design is explained with the intent of building the ground steps for future research approachable, especially for beginning researchers. Most of the existing research articles give a microcosmic view of the design and lack in describing the details behind the methodology. This study covers those details and marks the novelty of our research.

Heparin versus placebo for non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND

Non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS) represent a spectrum of disease including unstable angina and non-ST segment myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Despite treatment with aspirin, beta-blockers and nitroglycerin, unstable angina/NSTEMI is still associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Although evidence suggests that low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is more efficacious compared to unfractionated heparin (UFH), there is limited data to support the role of heparins as a drug class in the treatment of NSTEACS. This is an update of a review last published in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of heparins (UFH and LMWH) compared with placebo for the treatment of patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (unstable angina or NSTEMI).

SEARCH METHODS

For this update the Cochrane Heart Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 12), MEDLINE (OVID, 1946 to January week 1 2014), EMBASE (OVID, 1947 to 2014 week 02), CINAHL (1937 to 15 January 2014) and LILACS (1982 to 15 January 2014). We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of parenteral UFH or LMWH versus placebo in people with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (unstable angina or NSTEMI).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed quality of studies and independently extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

There were no new included studies for this update. Eight studies (3118 participants) were included in this review. We found no evidence for difference in overall mortality between the groups treated with heparin and placebo (risk ratio (RR) = 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.98). Heparins compared with placebo, reduced the occurrence of myocardial infarction in patients with unstable angina and NSTEMI (RR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.63, number needed to benefit (NNTB) = 33). There was a trend towards more major bleeds in the heparin studies compared to control studies (RR = 2.05, 95% CI 0.91 to 4.60). From a limited data set, there appeared to be no difference between patients treated with heparins compared to control in the occurrence of thrombocytopenia (RR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.24). Assessment of overall risk of bias in these studies was limited as most of the studies did not give sufficient detail to allow assessment of potential risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo, patients treated with heparins had a similar risk of mortality, revascularization, recurrent angina, and thrombocytopenia. However, those treated with heparins had a decreased risk of myocardial infarction and a higher incidence of minor bleeding. Overall, the evidence assessed in this review was classified as low quality according to the GRADE approach. The results presented in this review must therefore be interpreted with caution.

Integrins as therapeutic targets: lessons and opportunities

The integrins are a large family of cell adhesion molecules that are essential for the regulation of cell growth and function. The identification of key roles for integrins in a diverse range of diseases, including cancer, infection, thrombosis and autoimmune disorders, has revealed their substantial potential as therapeutic targets. However, so far, pharmacological inhibitors for only three integrins have received marketing approval. This article discusses the structure and function of integrins, their roles in disease and the chequered history of the approved integrin antagonists. Recent advances in the understanding of integrin function, ligand interaction and signalling pathways suggest novel strategies for inhibiting integrin function that could help harness their full potential as therapeutic targets.

Heparin versus placebo for acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND

Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) represent a spectrum of disease including unstable angina (UA) and non-ST segment myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Despite treatment with aspirin, beta-blockers and nitroglycerin, UA/NSTEMI is still associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Although emerging evidence suggests that low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is more efficacious compared to unfractionated heparin (UFH), there is limited data to support the role of heparins as a drug class in the treatment of ACS.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of heparins (UFH and LMWH) compared with placebo for the treatment of patients with ACS.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on The Cochrane Library (issue 4, 2002), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2002), EMBASE (1980 to May 2002) and CINAHL (1982 to May 2002). Authors of included studies and pharmaceutical industry representatives were contacted to determine if unpublished studies which met the inclusion criteria were available.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of parenteral UFH or LMWH versus placebo in people with ACS (UA or NSTEMI).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed quality of studies. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Study authors were contacted to verify and clarify missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies (3118 participants) were included in this review. We found no evidence for difference in overall mortality between the groups treated with heparin and placebo (RR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.98). Heparins reduced the occurrence of MI (RR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.63, NNT = 33). An increase in the incidence of minor bleeds (RR = 6.80, 95% CI 1.23 to 37.49, NNH = 17).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to placebo, patients treated with heparins had similar risk of mortality, revascularization, recurrent angina, major bleeding and thrombocytopenia. However, those treated with heparins had decreased risk of MI and a higher incidence of minor bleeding.

Safety and efficacy of treatment with platelet GPIIb/IIIa receptor blockade in unstable angina patients awaiting PTCA at a referring clinic

BACKGROUND: Although balloon angioplasty has assumed an important role in the management of refractory unstable angina (UA), that is, UA that does not respond to conventional therapy, it is limited by complications related to thrombosis and acute coronary occlusion. The complication rate is higher in patients with UA than in those whose condition is stable. Preprocedural use of abciximab, a monoclonal platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor blocker, has been used effectively in patients with UA, but its acceptance may be limited by safety concerns and economic constraints. The current trial investigated a protocol for abciximab pretreatment in patients with UA awaiting transfer from referring hospitals to a site of intervention (the 'drip and ship' protocol). AIMS: This observational study was conducted to evaluate whether a prophylactic, preprocedural regimen of abciximab can be safely and effectively administered to UA patients in referring hospitals while awaiting coronary angioplasty at the interventional clinic. METHODS: From April 1996 to December 1998, 168 consecutive patients with refractory UA (Braunwald class II or III) received abciximab prospectively at the referring clinic before undergoing PTCA or stent implantation at the interventional clinic. The following cost-conscious protocol was used: a 0.25 mg/kg bolus of abciximab followed by 10 micro g/min intravenously for 16 hours, in addition to intravenous nitrates, heparin and aspirin therapy. Patients were then transferred to a facility with PTCA capability via high-speed ambulance transport. No specific alterations of routine-transfer protocol were needed. Platelet aggregation studies were conducted during abciximab infusion. All interventions were performed while abciximab was given. Procedural and clinical success and long-term outcomes also were assessed. RESULTS: The primary angiographic success rate (patients with post-PTCA diameter stenosis < 50%) was 98%, and the in-hospital clinical success rate (angiographic success without major complications) was 98%. No major bleeding complications occurred during the abciximab pretreatment period. Platelet aggregation findings in the study patients showed a stable inhibition of >80% at the time of angioplasty. At 30-day follow-up, all patients were alive and 91% were free of major adverse events. Outcomes of balloon angioplasty and stenting were equally favorable, indicating no device-specific effect. Event-free survival at six months was 89% with a target vessel revascularization rate of 10%. CONCLUSION: Abciximab was administered safely and effectively to angioplasty patients with refractory UA awaiting transfer from a noninterventional setting to the site of angioplasty. These results extend the current knowledge base that has been established in randomized trials performed in interventional centers. The study protocol potentially could make abciximab therapy more feasible economically, and therefore more widely available to patients who are most likely to benefit from prophylactic administration.