Assessment of Adherence to Cardiovascular Medicines in Saudi Population: An Observational Study in Patients Attending a Tertiary Care Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Drug adherence has been extensively evaluated in many developed countries in the West using different methods of medication adherence measurement; however, there are relatively few reports studying the adherence levels among Saudi patients. Thus, this study will evaluate the adherence to cardiovascular medicines in Saudi patients visiting (PSCC) in Al-Qassim, Saudi Arabia. METHODS: This cross-sectional observational study relied on self-administered questionnaires. This study used the Morisky, Green, and Levine (MGL) Adherence Scale, also known as the MAQ (Medication Adherence Questionnaire), in PSCC's pharmacy waiting room in Qassim, Saudi Arabia. RESULTS: This study included 993 PSCC pharmacy waiting room patients. The patients were between 11 and 50 years old, and 52.7 percent were male. Most participants (71.2%) were above 50, while 16.3% were 41-50. Non-adherent patients cited traveling or being busy (28.6%), forgetting (18.7%), daily multi-medications (7.1%), being sleepy or sleeping (6.6%), and not repeating the prescription (6.6%). The Medicine Adherence Questionnaire indicated that 62.6 percent of patients fully adhered to their medications, and 21.6 percent usually adhered. Only drug adverse effects affected adherence (p =0.0001). CONCLUSION: The current study showed that there is a good level of adherence among patients with cardiovascular diseases toward their diseases. The most common reasons for neglecting medications include traveling or being busy, forgetting multiple medications, and being tired or sleeping. Having experience with side effects was the only significant factor affecting adherence to medications.

Aspirin for Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in 51 Low-, Middle-, and High-Income Countries.

Importance: Aspirin is an effective and low-cost option for reducing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and improving mortality rates among individuals with established CVD. To guide efforts to mitigate the global CVD burden, there is a need to understand current levels of aspirin use for secondary prevention of CVD. Objective: To report and evaluate aspirin use for secondary prevention of CVD across low-, middle-, and high-income countries. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional analysis using pooled, individual participant data from nationally representative health surveys conducted between 2013 and 2020 in 51 low-, middle-, and high-income countries. Included surveys contained data on self-reported history of CVD and aspirin use. The sample of participants included nonpregnant adults aged 40 to 69 years. Exposures: Countries' per capita income levels and world region; individuals' socioeconomic demographics. Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported use of aspirin for secondary prevention of CVD. Results: The overall pooled sample included 124 505 individuals. The median age was 52 (IQR, 45-59) years, and 50.5% (95% CI, 49.9%-51.1%) were women. A total of 10 589 individuals had a self-reported history of CVD (8.1% [95% CI, 7.6%-8.6%]). Among individuals with a history of CVD, aspirin use for secondary prevention in the overall pooled sample was 40.3% (95% CI, 37.6%-43.0%). By income group, estimates were 16.6% (95% CI, 12.4%-21.9%) in low-income countries, 24.5% (95% CI, 20.8%-28.6%) in lower-middle-income countries, 51.1% (95% CI, 48.2%-54.0%) in upper-middle-income countries, and 65.0% (95% CI, 59.1%-70.4%) in high-income countries. Conclusion and Relevance: Worldwide, aspirin is underused in secondary prevention, particularly in low-income countries. National health policies and health systems must develop, implement, and evaluate strategies to promote aspirin therapy.

Percutaneous Revascularization for Ischemic Left Ventricular Dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Whether revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can improve event-free survival and left ventricular function in patients with severe ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction, as compared with optimal medical therapy (i.e., individually adjusted pharmacologic and device therapy for heart failure) alone, is unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less, extensive coronary artery disease amenable to PCI, and demonstrable myocardial viability to a strategy of either PCI plus optimal medical therapy (PCI group) or optimal medical therapy alone (optimal-medical-therapy group). The primary composite outcome was death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure. Major secondary outcomes were left ventricular ejection fraction at 6 and 12 months and quality-of-life scores. RESULTS: A total of 700 patients underwent randomization - 347 were assigned to the PCI group and 353 to the optimal-medical-therapy group. Over a median of 41 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 129 patients (37.2%) in the PCI group and in 134 patients (38.0%) in the optimal-medical-therapy group (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.27; P = 0.96). The left ventricular ejection fraction was similar in the two groups at 6 months (mean difference, -1.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.7 to 0.5) and at 12 months (mean difference, 0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.7 to 3.4). Quality-of-life scores at 6 and 12 months appeared to favor the PCI group, but the difference had diminished at 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with severe ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction who received optimal medical therapy, revascularization by PCI did not result in a lower incidence of death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Program; REVIVED-BCIS2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01920048.).

Cost-effectiveness of a paclitaxel-eluting stent (Eluvia) compared to Zilver PTX for endovascular femoropopliteal intervention.

OBJECTIVES: Antiproliferative therapies based on paclitaxel have been developed to extend the durability of endovascular interventions for lower-extremity atherosclerotic peripheral artery disease, resulting in improved primary vessel patency and fewer target lesion revascularizations. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the sustained-release, paclitaxel-eluting Eluvia stent (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA) versus the paclitaxel-coated Zilver PTX stent (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN) for endovascular intervention in the superficial femoral or proximal popliteal artery. DESIGN: A microsimulation model was constructed from a United States Medicare perspective with a 24-month time horizon. Patients entering the model were assigned to initial endovascular intervention with either Eluvia or Zilver PTX. Each month patients were exposed to the risks of primary vessel patency loss, target lesion revascularization, amputation, and death. Clinical input parameters were taken from a randomized trial (IMPERIAL) comparing the two interventions at 24-months follow-up. Cost parameters were obtained from analyses of Medicare administrative and claims data. Cost-effectiveness analysis entailed sampling a complete set of clinical and cost parameters from their respective distributions, and then running cohorts of 10,000 patients through each intervention arm of the model. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base case microsimulation, at 24 months, the modeled target lesion revascularization was 11.6% for Eluvia and 19.0% for Zilver PTX, and the mean total direct costs were $20,010 and $21,356, respectively (Eluvia average savings=$1,346). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, Eluvia was cost-effective in 87.8% of all simulations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $10,000 per target lesion revascularization prevented. Eluvia was more effective and less costly (dominant) than Zilver PTX in 73.6% of simulations. CONCLUSIONS: In this comparison of a paclitaxel-eluting to a paclitaxel-coated stent for endovascular femoropopliteal intervention, Eluvia was more effective and less costly (dominant) than Zilver PTX from a US Medicare perspective. These findings should be considered when formulating reimbursement policy and clinical practice guidelines.

Paclitaxel is a drug used in the treatment of peripheral artery disease (PAD) to help maintain primary vessel patency and reduce the need for revascularization procedures. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the paclitaxel-eluting Eluvia stent (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA) versus the paclitaxel-coated Zilver PTX stent (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN) in Medicare patients with PAD. Cost-effectiveness is defined as the degree to which a particular treatment option is effective relative to its costs. Therefore, this study compared both the effectiveness, in terms of target lesion revascularization rates, and the costs of Eluvia versus Zilver PTX over 24 months.A microsimulation model was developed from a United States Medicare perspective with a 24-month time horizon. Simulated patients entered the model and were assigned to receive either Eluvia or Zilver PTX. Monthly, patients were exposed to the risks of primary vessel patency loss, target lesion revascularization (TLR), amputation, and death. These risks were taken from a randomized controlled trial that compared Eluvia and Zilver PTX over 24 months. Patients also accrued costs over time. The costs used in the model were obtained from Medicare administrative and claims data analyses.In health economics, a treatment is considered to be the dominant treatment option if it is both more effective and less costly than the alternative treatment. In this case, Eluvia was found to be dominant over Zilver PTX because it was associated with lower TLR rates and lower costs. These findings should be considered when formulating reimbursement policy and clinical practice guidelines.

The Price of Progress: Cost, Access, and Adoption of Novel Cardiovascular Drugs in Clinical Practice.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The launch of new effective and safe cardiovascular drugs has produced large gains in health outcomes for several cardiovascular conditions. But this innovation comes at the cost of rapidly increasing pharmaceutical spending and high out-of-pocket costs. RECENT FINDINGS: In the USA, manufacturers are able to set prices according to what the market will bear rather than value to patients or society, with a complicated system of discounts and rebates obscuring the final price borne by payors. Some of these costs are passed on to patients in the form of co-payments or co-insurance, making these effective but high-cost medications unaffordable for many patients. Orphan drugs developed to treat rare diseases-for which manufactures are presented substantial financial and regulatory benefits-are particularly problematic, as they typically enter the market at very high prices compared with drugs for other indications. Systematic cost-effectiveness analyses from the healthcare sector or societal perspectives can help identify the value-based price of a medication at market entry as well as later in the lifecycle of the drug when more data on effectiveness and safety becomes available. Despite bipartisan support, legislative progress on drug pricing has been slow. Clinicians should know the cost of the drugs they prescribe frequently, use generics where feasible, and regularly discuss out-of-pocket costs with patients to pre-empt cost-related non-adherence.

Changes in Purchases for Intensive Care Medicines During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Global Time Series Study.

BACKGROUND: Drug supply disruptions have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially for medicines used in the ICU. Despite reported shortages in wealthy countries, global analyses of ICU drug purchasing during COVID-19 are limited. RESEARCH QUESTION: Has COVID-19 impacted global drug purchases of first-, second-, and third-choice agents used in intensive care? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional time series study in a global pharmacy sales dataset comprising approximately 60% of the world's population. We analyzed pandemic-related changes in units purchased per 1,000 population for 69 ICU agents. Interventional autoregressive integrated moving average models tested for significant changes when the pandemic was declared (March 2020) and during its first stage from April through August 2020, globally and by development status. RESULTS: Relative to 2019, ICU drug purchases increased by 23.6% (95% CI, 7.9%-37.9%) in March 2020 (P < .001) and then decreased by 10.3% (95% CI, -16.9% to -3.5%) from April through August (P = .006). Purchases for second-choice medicines changed the most, especially in developing countries (eg, 29.3% increase in March 2020). Despite similar relative changes (P = .88), absolute purchasing rates in developing nations remained low. The observed decrease from April through August 2020 was significant only in developed countries (-13.1%; 95% CI, -17.4% to -4.4%; P < .001). Country-level variation seemed unrelated to expected demand and health care infrastructure. INTERPRETATION: Purchases for intensive care medicines increased globally in the month of the COVID-19 pandemic declaration, but before peak infection rates. These changes were most pronounced for second-choice agents, suggesting that inexpensive, generic medicines may be purchased more easily in anticipation of pandemic-related ICU surges. Nevertheless, disparities in access persisted. Trends seemed unrelated to expected demand, and decreased purchasing from April through August 2020 may suggest overbuying. National and international policies are needed to ensure equitable drug purchasing during future pandemics.

Chronotropic Assessment in Patients with Constrictive Pericarditis.

Management of constrictive pericarditis is often clinically challenging. Heart rate (HR) modulation using ivabradine is associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with systolic heart failure, although it remains uninvestigated for other clinical purposes. We aimed to assess the impact of HR control in patients with constrictive pericarditis. In this retrospective study, consecutive patients who were diagnosed with constrictive pericarditis were included. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed at index discharge (day 0). The impact of HR difference between actual HR and ideal HR, which was calculated using a formula consisting of deceleration time, on heart failure readmission rates was investigated. A total of 15 patients (73 years old on median, 11 men) with constrictive pericarditis were included. On median, actual HR was 71 bpm and ideal HR was 81 bpm. Heart failure readmission rates were stratified into three groups by the HR difference: (1) optimal HR group satisfying "-10 bpm ≤ HR difference ≤ 10 bpm" (n = 4, 0.067 events per year); (2) lower HR group satisfying "HR difference < -10 bpm" (n = 7, 0.118 events per year, incidence rate ratio 1.98, 95% confidence interval 0.06-61.6); (3) higher HR group satisfying "HR difference > 10 bpm" (n = 4, 0.231 events per year, incidence rate ratio 9.22, 95% confidence interval 0.36-237.8). In conclusion, non-optimized HR was associated with an increased risk of heart failure recurrence in patients with constrictive pericarditis. Prospective assessment of deceleration time-guided HR optimization in patients with constrictive pericarditis is needed.

Optimising the Heart Failure Treatment Pathway: The Role of SGLT2 Inhibitors.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors were first developed as glucose-lowering therapies for the treatment of diabetes. However, these drugs have now been recognised to prevent worsening heart-failure events, improve health-related quality of life, and reduce mortality in people with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), including those both with and without diabetes. Despite robust clinical trial data demonstrating favourable outcomes with SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with HFrEF, there is a lack of familiarity with the HF indication for these drugs, which have been the remit of diabetologists to date. In this article we use consensus expert opinion alongside the available evidence and label indication to provide support for the healthcare community treating people with HF regarding positioning of SGLT2 inhibitors within the treatment pathway. By highlighting appropriate prescribing and practical considerations, we hope to encourage greater, and safe, use of SGLT2 inhibitors in this population.

Non-adherence to antidiabetic and cardiovascular drugs in type 2 diabetes mellitus and its association with renal and cardiovascular outcomes: A narrative review.

Cardiovascular and renal complications are a major burden for individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Besides lifestyle interventions, current guidelines recommend combination drug therapy to prevent or delay the incidence and progression of comorbidities. However, non-adherence to pharmacotherapy is common in chronic conditions such as T2DM and a barrier to successful disease management. Numerous studies have associated medication non-adherence with worse outcome as well as higher health care costs. This narrative review provides (i) an overview on adherence measures used within and outside research settings, (ii) an estimate on the prevalence of non-adherence to antidiabetic and cardiovascular drugs in T2DM, and (iii) specifically focuses on the association of non-adherence to these drugs with renal and cardiovascular outcomes.

Adherence to cardiovascular pharmacotherapy by patients in Iraq: A mixed methods assessment using quantitative dried blood spot analysis and the 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale.

This study evaluated the adherence to prescribed cardiovascular therapy medications among cardiovascular disease patients attending clinics in Misan, Amara, Iraq. Mixed methods were used to assess medication adherence comprising the Arabic version of the eight-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8) and determination of drug concentrations in patient dried blood spot (DBS) samples by liquid chromatography-high resolution mass spectrometry. Three hundred and three Iraqi patients (median age 53 years, 50.5% female) who had been taking one or more of the nine commonly prescribed cardiovascular medications (amlodipine, atenolol, atorvastatin, bisoprolol, diltiazem, lisinopril, losartan, simvastatin and valsartan) for at least six months were enrolled. For each patient MMAS-8 scores were determined alongside drug concentrations in their dried blood spot samples. Results from the standardized questionnaire showed that adherence was 81.8% in comparison with 50.8% obtained using the laboratory-based microsample analysis. The agreement between the indirect (MMAS-8) and direct (DBS analysis) assessment approaches to assessing medication adherence showed significantly poor agreement (kappa = 0.28, P = 0.001). The indirect and direct assessment approaches showed no significant correlation between nonadherence to prescribed cardiovascular pharmacotherapy and age and gender, but were significantly associated with the number of medications in the patient's treatment regimen (MMAS-8: Odds Ratio (OR) 1.947, 95% CI, P = 0.001; DBS analysis: OR 2.164, 95% CI, P = 0.001). The MMAS-8 results highlighted reasons for nonadherence to prescribed cardiovascular pharmacotherapy in this patient population whilst the objective DBS analysis approach gave valuable information about nonadherence to each medication in the patient's treatment regimen. DBS sampling, due its minimally invasive nature, convenience and ease of transport is a useful alternative matrix to monitor adherence objectively in Iraq to cardiovascular pharmacotherapy. This information combined with MMAS-8 can provide clinicians with an evidence-based novel approach to implement intervention strategies to optimise and personalise cardiovascular pharmacotherapy in the Iraqi population and thereby improve patient health outcomes.

Associations between essential medicines and health outcomes for cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: National essential medicines lists are used to guide medicine reimbursement and public sector medicine procurement for many countries therefore medicine listings may impact health outcomes. METHODS: Countries' national essential medicines lists were scored on whether they listed proven medicines for ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease and hypertensive heart disease. In this cross sectional study linear regression was used to measure the association between countries' medicine coverage scores and healthcare access and quality scores. RESULTS: There was an association between healthcare access and quality scores and health expenditure for ischemic heart disease (p ≤ 0.001), cerebrovascular disease (p ≤ 0.001) and hypertensive heart disease (p ≤ 0.001). However, there was no association between medicine coverage scores and healthcare access and quality scores for ischemic heart disease (p = 0.252), cerebrovascular disease (p = 0.194) and hypertensive heart disease (p = 0.209) when country characteristics were accounted for. CONCLUSIONS: Listing more medicines on national essential medicines lists may only be one factor in reducing mortality from cardiovascular disease and improving healthcare access and quality scores.

Sex differences in heart failure medications targeting the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system.

Heart failure (HF) is a major healthcare problem. Sex-related differences in clinical manifestations, outcomes, risk factors and symptoms in HF have been described in the literature. Sex-related differences have also been described in the regulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), which is at the core of the pathophysiology of HF. Considering that drugs targeting RAAS are cornerstones in the treatment of HF, it is important to determine whether sex-related differences exist in the use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) and ARB/neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs). In regards to the relative efficacy of RAAS drugs in men vs. women in HF, there are conflicting results, which may stem from the fact that a lot of clinical trials were not specifically designed to investigate sex differences, with many of them having an underrepresentation of women. With respect to optimal dosage of RAAS drugs, even though, current HF guidelines, recommend up-titration to the same target dose in both men and women, evidence suggests that lower doses could be used in women. Furthermore, several studies have reported underutilization of guideline-directed medical therapy in women, including ACEIs, ARBs and MRAs, which may be at least partially attributed to increased prevalence of HF with a preserved ejection fraction and increased propensity for adverse effects in women. Overall, these investigations have shed some light on sex-related differences but there is scope for conducting further studies to determine the optimal use of RAAS drugs in men and women with failing hearts.

Gaps in Evidence-Based Therapy Use in Insured Patients in the United States With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.

Background Evidence-based therapies are generally underused for cardiovascular risk reduction; however, less is known about contemporary patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Methods and Results Pharmacy and medical claims data from within Anthem were queried for patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Using an index date of April 18, 2018, we evaluated the proportion of patients with a prescription claim for any of the 3 evidence-based therapies on, or covering, the index date ±30 days: high-intensity statin, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, and sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist. The potential benefit of achieving 100% adoption of all 3 evidence-based therapies was simulated using pooled treatment estimates from clinical trials. Of the 155 958 patients in the sample, 24.7% were using a high-intensity statin, 53.1% were using an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, and 9.9% were using either an sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. Overall, only 2.7% of the population were covered by prescriptions for all 3 evidence-based therapies, and 37.4% were on none of them. Over a 12-month period, 70.6% of patients saw a cardiologist, while only 18% saw an endocrinologist. Increasing the use of evidence-based therapies to 100% over 3 years of treatment could be expected to reduce 4546 major atherosclerotic cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death) in eligible but untreated patients. Conclusions Alarming gaps exist in the contemporary use of evidence-based therapies in this large population of insured patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. These data provide a call to action for patients, providers, industry, regulators, professional societies, and payers to close these gaps in care.

Strategies to Reduce Out-of-Pocket Medication Costs for Canadians Living with Heart Failure.

INTRODUCTION: Daily medication is the cornerstone of evidence-based therapy to reduce mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure (HF). Up to 20% of Canadian patients pay for medications out of pocket. We sought to identify strategies that patients and prescribers can employ to reduce these costs. METHODS: We collected data from outpatient pharmacies in Hamilton, Ontario. We determined prices for different medications in each of the drug classes recommended for HF with reduced ejection fraction in the Canadian Cardiovascular Society's guidelines. We examined differences in dispensing and delivery fees and inquired about other cost-saving strategies. RESULTS: We collected data from 24 different pharmacies, including a selection of hospital-based, independent, and larger chain pharmacies. In the most extreme scenario (i.e., 90-day prescription instead of a 30-day prescription and the least expensive generic drug instead of the most expensive brand name drug), total medication costs can differ by up to $495.56 per month. Costs were affected by choice of agent within a drug class, generic versus brand-name drug, quantity dispensed, dispensing fee, and delivery cost. CONCLUSIONS: Prescription content, dispensing practice, and pharmacy choice can remarkably impact out-of-pocket costs for HF medications. Prescribers can reduce costs by writing 90-day prescriptions and choosing the lowest-cost generic drugs in each therapeutic class. Patients should consider the services received for their pharmacy dispensing fees, use free delivery services where needed, and request inexpensive generic drugs. Pharmacists can facilitate cost minimization without compromising therapeutic efficacy.

Epidemiologic Characterization of Heart Failure with Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction Populations Identified Using Medicare Claims.

BACKGROUND: Administrative claims do not contain ejection fraction information for heart failure patients. We recently developed and validated a claims-based model to predict ejection fraction subtype. METHODS: Heart failure patients aged 65 years or above from US Medicare fee-for-service claims were identified using diagnoses recorded after a 6-month baseline period of continuous enrollment, which was used to identify predictors and to apply the claims-based model to distinguish heart failure with reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFrEF or HFpEF). Patients were followed for the composite outcome of time to first worsening heart failure event (heart failure hospitalization or outpatient intravenous diuretic treatment) or all-cause mortality. RESULTS: A total of 3,134,414 heart failure patients with an average age of 79 years were identified, of which 200,950 (6.4%) were classified as HFrEF. Among those classified as HFrEF, men comprised a larger proportion (68% vs 41%) and the average age was lower (76 vs 79 years) compared with HFpEF. History of myocardial infarction was more common in HFrEF (32% vs 13%), while hypertension was more common in HFpEF (71% vs 77%). One-year cumulative incidence of the composite endpoint was 42.6% for HFrEF and 36.9% for HFpEF. One-year all-cause mortality incidence was similar between the groups (27.4% for HFrEF and 26.4% for HFpEF), however, cardiovascular mortality was higher for HFrEF (15.6% vs 11.3%), whereas noncardiovascular mortality was higher for HFpEF (11.8% vs 15.1%). CONCLUSION: We replicated well-documented differences in key patient characteristics and cause-specific outcomes between HFrEF and HFpEF in populations identified based on the application of a claims-based model.

A review of diagnosis, etiology, assessment, and management of patients with myocardial infarction in the absence of obstructive coronary artery disease.

Myocardial infarction (MI) in the absence of obstructive coronary artery disease (MINOCA) is prevalent in around 5% of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) presentations. MINOCA is a heterogeneous entity with many different etiologies. It is important for health care providers to familiarize themselves with the disease process, presentation, and possible underlying causes in order to guide appropriate management strategies. In this article, the authors review the contemporary definition, etiologies and assessment, and management for AMI patients with MINOCA.

Microvascular Assessment of Ranolazine in Non-Obstructive Atherosclerosis: The MARINA Randomized, Double-Blinded, Controlled Pilot Trial.

BACKGROUND: Microvascular dysfunction is known to play a key role in patients with angina and nonobstructive coronary artery disease. We investigated the impact of ranolazine among patients with angina and nonobstructive coronary artery disease. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled pilot trial, 26 patients with angina once weekly or more, abnormal stress test, and nonobstructive coronary artery disease (<50% stenosis by angiography and fractional flow reserve >0.80) were randomized 1:1 to ranolazine or placebo for 12 weeks. Primary end point was ΔSeattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) angina frequency score. Baseline and 3 months follow-up SAQ, Duke Activity Status Index scores along with invasive fractional flow reserve, coronary flow reserve (CFR), hyperemic myocardial resistance, and cardiopulmonary exercise testing measurements were performed. RESULTS: No significant differences in ΔSAQ angina frequency scores (P=0.53) or Duke Activity Status Index (P=0.76) were observed between ranolazine versus placebo, although patients on ranolazine had lesser improvement in SAQ physical limitation scores (P=0.02) compared with placebo at 3 months. There were no significant differences in ΔCFR or Δhyperemic myocardial resistance between ranolazine and placebo groups. Patients treated with ranolazine, compared with placebo, had no significant improvement in maximum rate of oxygen consumption measured during incremental exercise (VO2 max) and peak metabolic equivalents of task. Interestingly, in the ranolazine group, patients with baseline CFR<2.0 demonstrated greater gain in CFR compared with those with baseline CFR≥2.0 (P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Ranolazine did not demonstrate improvement in SAQ angina frequency score, invasive microvascular function, or peak metabolic equivalent compared with placebo at 3 months. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02147067.