Clinical outcomes of generic versus brand-name clopidogrel for secondary prevention in patients with acute myocardial infarction: A nationwide cohort study.

Skepticism exists among healthcare workers and patients regarding the efficacy and safety of generic medication, despite its potential to lower healthcare costs. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of a generic clopidogrel and its brand-name counterpart for secondary prevention in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Using the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database, we identified 49,325 patients who were hospitalized for AMI between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2013 and prescribed either generic or brand-name clopidogrel. Among them, 2419 (4.9%) were prescribed the generic clopidogrel. After propensity score matching, both the generic and brand-name groups consisted of 2382 patients. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, ischemic stroke, and all-cause death. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding requiring hospitalization. At a mean follow-up of 2.5 years, the generic and brand-name clopidogrel groups had comparable risks of primary efficacy outcome (41.9% vs. 42%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-1.04), and the risks of the individual components were also similar. There were no significant differences between the two groups in major bleeding (7.9% vs. 7.9%; HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.81-1.21). Subgroup analyses also revealed no statistically significant interactions between the treatment effect and various subgroups. In this retrospective database analysis, the generic clopidogrel was comparable to its brand-name counterpart regarding cardiovascular and bleeding outcomes for the treatment of patients with AMI.

Case report: Sudden cardiorespiratory collapse in a healthy male after coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination at a vaccination center.

Since 2020, new vaccines were developed to fight the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Vaccination is important in preventing mortality and achieving herd immunity. However, due to vast vaccination, fatal adverse events could be seen. We report a case of a previously healthy, young male who had a cardiopulmonary arrest 2 min after receiving the Oxford- AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) COVID-19 vaccination. After targeted temperature management, a coronary angiogram was performed after neurological recovery and showed severe stenosis at the proximal left anterior descending artery. Stenting was done and he was discharge. No similar case of sudden cardiorespiratory collapse immediately after COVID-19 vaccination has been reported. Our patient did not have any effort-related angina or dyspnea on exertion before this event. The sudden cardiorespiratory collapse was probably related to underlying coronary artery disease, complicated with a vasovagal event. We stress the importance of coronary angiography in out of hospital cardiac arrest patients after neurological recovery. In the era of COVID-19 vaccination, even though fatal adverse events following immunization are rare, heightened awareness of severe side effects needing medical attention is very important.

Levosimendan use in patients with acute heart failure and reduced ejection fraction with or without severe renal dysfunction in critical cardiac care units: a multi-institution database study.

BACKGROUND: Acute heart failure is a life-threatening clinical condition. Levosimendan is an effective inotropic agent used to maintain cardiac output, but its usage is limited by the lack of evidence in patients with severely abnormal renal function. Therefore, we analyzed data of patients with acute heart failure with and without abnormal renal function to examine the effects of levosimendan. METHODS: We performed this retrospective cohort study using data from the Chang Gung Research Database (CGRD) of Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (CGMH). Patients admitted for heart failure with LVEF ≤ 40% between January 2013 and December 2018 who received levosimendan or dobutamine in the critical cardiac care units (CCU) were identified. Patients with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) were excluded. Outcomes of interest were mortality at 30, 90, and 180 days after the cohort entry date. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in mortality rate at 30, 90, and 180 days after the cohort entry date between the levosimendan and dobutamine groups, or between subgroups of patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 and eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or on dialysis. The results were consistent before and after propensity score matching. CONCLUSIONS: Levosimendan did not increase short- or long-term mortality rates in critical patients with acute heart failure and reduced ejection fraction compared to dobutamine, regardless of their renal function. An eGFR less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 was not necessarily considered a contraindication for levosimendan in these patients.

The risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors versus dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) reduces the risk of hard cardiovascular endpoints in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with/without established cardiovascular diseases. Whether SGLT2i is associated with a lower risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in T2DM patients is unclear. We aimed to evaluate the risk of new-onset AF associated with the use of SGLT2i compared to dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4i) among a longitudinal cohort of diabetic patients. METHODS: We used medical data from a multi-center healthcare provider in Taiwan, which included a total of 15,606 and 12,383 patients treated with SGLT2i and DPP4i, respectively, from June 1, 2016 to December 31, 2018. We used propensity-score weighting to balance covariates across study groups. Patients were followed up from the drug index date until the occurrence of new-onset AF, discontinuation of the index drug, or the end of the study period, whichever occurred first. RESULTS: Overall, 55%, 45%, and 0% of the patients were treated with empagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and canagliflozin, respectively. Most patients in the DPP4i group were prescribed with linagliptin (51%), followed by sitagliptin (24%), saxagliptin (13%), vildagliptin (8%) and alogliptin (5%). The use of SGLT2i was associated with a lower risk of new-onset AF compared with DPP4i after propensity-score weighting [hazard ratio: 0.61; 95% confidential interval: 0.50-0.73; P < 0.001]. Subgroup analysis revealed that the use of SGLT2i was associated with a lower risk of new-onset AF compared with DPP4i across several subgroups including old age, female in gender, the presence of cardiovascular disease, hemoglobin A1c [Formula: see text] 8%, and chronic kidney disease. The advantage of SGLT2i over DPP4i persisted with different SGLT2i (dapagliflozin or empagliflozin) and either low- or standard-dose SGLT2i. CONCLUSIONS: SGLT2i was associated with a lower risk of new-onset AF compared with DPP4i among T2DM patients in real-world practice.

Glycemic status and risks of thromboembolism and major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Studies specifically examining the association between glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels and ischemic stroke/systemic thromboembolism (IS/SE) risk in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients are limited. Here, we investigated the association between HbA1c levels and the risk of IS/SE, as well as major bleeding, among AF patients with or without oral anticoagulants (OACs). We also compared the effectiveness and safety of warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in different HbA1c categories. METHODS: We utilized medical data from a multi-center healthcare provider in Taiwan, which included 34,036 AF patients with serum HbA1c data available within 3 months after AF being diagnosed. Patients were divided into seven study groups according to their HbA1c levels: < 5.4%, 5.4%-5.6%, 5.7%-5.9%, 6.0%-6.4%, 6.5%-6.9%, 7.0%-7.9%, and ≥ 8.0%. The risks of IS/SE and major bleeding were compared among the groups after adjusting for baseline stroke and bleeding risk factors. RESULTS: Compared with the patients with HbA1c level < 5.4%, IS/SE risk significantly increased at HbA1c levels higher than 6.5% [adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.00-1.43 for HbA1c level 6.5%-6.9%; 1.32, (95% CI 1.11-1.57) for HbA1c level 7.0%-7.9%; and 1.48 (95% CI 1.25-1.76) for HbA1c level ≥ 8.0%]. These results were generally consistent in AF patients without OACs (n = 24,931). However, among 9105 patients receiving OACs, IS/SE risk was not higher for patients having higher HbA1c levels. The risk of major bleeding was comparable across all HbA1c categories. Compared with warfarin, DOACs were associated with lower risks of IS/SE (adjusted HR: 0.61, 95% CI 0.49-0.75) and major bleeding (adjusted HR: 0.30, 95% CI 0.21-0.42) without interactions across different HbA1c categories (all P interactions > 0.05). CONCLUSION: For AF patients, IS/SE risk significantly increased once HbA1c levels exceeded 6.5%, and OACs may attenuate these associations. Compared with warfarin, DOACs were more effective and safer across broad HbA1c categories. Therefore, in addition to prescribing DOACs when indicated, more aggressive glycemic control to achieve an HbA1c level < 6.5% may be considered for eligible AF patients and should be tested in further prospective studies.