[Antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulation in patients with coronary heart disease]. / Antithrombozytäre Therapie und Antikoagulation bei Patienten mit koronarer Herzerkrankung.

Coronary heart disease (CHD) is a dynamic process with acute instable events and chronic periods leading to an increased mortality. Patients with CHD benefit from a differentiated antithrombotic therapy consisting of dual antiplatelet therapy in the acute phase and antiplatelet monotherapy or in combination with low dose anticoagulation (Xa-Inhibition) in the chronic phase. Current ESC-guidelines differentiate the acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and the chronic coronary syndrome (CCS). Depending on thrombotic burden, bleeding risk, comorbidities, such as atrial fibrillation, antiplatelet agents and oral anticoagulants in various combinations and dosages are used. In most scenarios in patients with ACS, the initial therapy will consist out of acetylsalicylic acid and a P2Y12-Inhibitor for 12 months followed by either a continuous monotherapy with acetylsalicylic acid (ASS), a prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy or a continuous dual antithrombotic therapy consisting of ASS and low dose rivaroxaban 2x daily. With atrial fibrillation as an underlying condition, an anticoagulant should be part of the therapy followed by anticoagulant monotherapy in the chronic phase of the disease (CCS). This article provides information about the different drugs and therapeutic algorithms based on the newest ESC-Guidelines and up to date studies.

Early nonreactivity in the conjunctival provocation test predicts beneficial outcome of sublingual immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice needs a common parameter that can provide an early, reliable estimation of the outcome of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in an upcoming pollen season. We investigated whether the conjunctival provocation test (CPT) can predict the beneficial outcome of SLIT in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis after 4 weeks of treatment. METHODS: We conducted two separate prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trials. Adults 18-75 years of age received placebo or SLIT tablets containing tree or grass pollen allergoids and underwent CPTs. Participants receiving SLIT were divided into two groups (reactive, nonreactive) according to their CPT reactions after 4 weeks of treatment. These two groups were compared with regard to clinical outcome parameters (total combined score, rhinoconjunctivitis total symptom score, total rescue medication score, well days) assessed during the pollen season for the 14-day (tree) or 30-day (tree/grass) peaks and for the entire 60-day seasons. Participants' global evaluations of therapy after completing treatment were also compared. RESULTS: The tree pollen trial randomized 188 participants; 182 participants were evaluable, 76 of whom received SLIT and were suitable for this post hoc analysis. The grass pollen trial included 90 participants; 82 participants were evaluable, 44 of whom underwent SLIT. Comparing SLIT participants who reacted to the CPT after 4 weeks (tree: 77.6%; grass: 79.5%) with those who ceased to show a reaction (tree: 22.4%; grass: 20.5%) (tree: P = 0.0001; grass: P = 0.003), the total combined score for the 14-day (P = 0.017) and 30-day peaks (P = 0.042) as well as the rhinoconjunctivitis total symptom score assessed for the 14-day peak (P = 0.024) were significantly lower in the nonreactive group of the tree pollen trial. In the grass pollen trial, the nonreactive group rated their SLIT treatment significantly better (P = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Using clinically meaningful outcome parameters during the pollen season, both trials independently led to similar results when comparing participants' reactions to the CPT 4 weeks after beginning SLIT. These results suggest that CPT allows an early estimation of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms before an upcoming season. Thus, the CPT can be used as a valuable parameter to predict the beneficial outcome of ongoing SLIT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Both trials registered with the Medical Ethics Committee of the North Rhine Medical Council (EudraCT numbers 2012-004916-79 (grass pollen trial) and 2013-002129-43 (tree pollen trial)) and the German Federal Ministry of Health (Paul-Ehrlich-Institut).