Drug-Coated Balloons in the Management of Coronary Artery Disease.

Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) are specialized coronary devices comprised of a semicompliant balloon catheter with an engineered coating that allows the delivery of antiproliferative agents locally to the vessel wall during percutaneous coronary intervention. Although DCBs were initially developed more than a decade ago, their potential in coronary interventions has recently sparked renewed interest, especially in the United States. Originally designed to overcome the limitations of conventional balloon angioplasty and stenting, they aim to match or even improve upon the outcomes of drug-eluting stents without leaving a permanent implant. Presently, in-stent restenosis is the condition with the most robust evidence supporting the use of DCBs. DCBs provide improved long-term vessel patency compared with conventional balloon angioplasty and may be comparable to drug-eluting stents without the need for an additional stent layer, supporting their use as a first-line therapy for in-stent restenosis. Beyond the treatment of in-stent restenosis, DCBs provide an additional tool for de novo lesions for a strategy that avoids a permanent metal scaffold, which may be especially useful for the management of technically challenging anatomies such as small vessels and bifurcations. DCBs might also be advantageous for patients with high bleeding risk due to the decreased necessity for extended antiplatelet therapy, and in patients with diabetes and patients with diffuse disease to minimize long-stented segments. Further studies are crucial to confirm these broader applications for DCBs and to further validate safety and efficacy.

Differences in provider approach to initiating and titrating guideline directed medical therapy in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Despite the strong evidence supporting guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), prescription rates in clinical practice are still lacking. METHODS: A survey containing 20 clinical vignettes of patients with HFrEF was answered by a national sample of 127 cardiologists and 68 internal/family medicine physicians. Each vignette had 4-5 options for adjusting GDMT and the option to make no medication changes. Survey respondents could only select one option. For analysis, responses were dichotomized to the answer of interest. RESULTS: Cardiologists were more likely to make GDMT changes than general medicine physicians (91.8% vs. 82.0%; OR 1.84 [1.07-3.19]; p = 0.020). Cardiologists were more likely to initiate beta-blockers (46.3% vs. 32.0%; OR 2.38 [1.18-4.81], p = 0.016), angiotensin receptor blocker/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) (63.8% vs. 48.1%; OR 1.76 [1.01-3.09], p = 0.047), and hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate (HYD/ISDN) (38.2% vs. 23.7%; OR 2.47 [1.48-4.12], p < 0.001) compared to general medicine physicians. No differences were found in initiating angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEi/ARBs), initiating mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), sodium-glucose transporter protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, digoxin, or ivabradine. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate cardiologists were more likely to adjust GDMT than general medicine physicians. Future focus on improving GDMT prescribing should target providers other than cardiologists to improve care in patients with HFrEF.

Randomized comparison of the effects of tailored text messaging versus pillbox organizers on medication adherence of heart failure patients.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is a major public health issue worldwide, affecting approximately 64.3 million people in 2017. Non-adherence to medication is a common and serious issue in the management of HF. However, new reminder systems utilizing mobile technology, such as text messaging, have shown promise in improving medication adherence. The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of tailored text messaging (TTM) and pillbox organizers on medication adherence in individuals with HF. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted, involving 189 eligible patients with HF who were randomly assigned to either the TTM, pillbox organizer, or control group. Medication adherence was evaluated using pill counting and the Medication Adherence Rating Scale (MARS) over a period of three months and compared across the groups. The data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), and Repeated Measures ANOVA tests. RESULTS: The results indicate that both the TTM and pillbox organizers groups had significantly higher medication adherence compared to the control group, as measured by pill counting (MD = 0.05, 95%CI = 0.03-0.06; p < 0.001 for TTM group, MD = 0.04, 95%CI = 0.03-0.06; p < 0.001 for pillbox organizers group) and the MARS (MD = 1.32, 95%CI = 0.93 to 1.72; p < 0.001 for TTM group, MD = 1.33, 95%CI = 0.95 to 1.72; p < 0.001 for pillbox organizers group). However, there was no statistically significant difference in medication adherence between the two intervention groups using either measurement method. The TTM group exhibited a lower hospitalization rate than the other groups in the first follow up (p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Both the TTM and pillbox organizers were shown to be effective in enhancing medication adherence among patients with HF. Therefore, healthcare providers should take into account the patient's condition and preferences when selecting one of these methods to promote medication adherence. Future research should aim to address the limitations of this study, such as controlling for confounding variables, considering long-term effects, and comparing the effectiveness of different interventions.

Medicare Coverage and Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs for Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Medications.

This cross-sectional study evaluates the association between Medicare coverage and patient out-of-pocket costs for cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic medications.

Sex Differences in Cardiovascular Management: A Call for Better Acknowledgment-Part 1 Pharmacological Differences in Women and Men; How Relevant Are They?

BACKGROUND: Sex differences (SDs) in pharmacology of cardiovascular (CV) drugs have been described previously; however, paradoxically, there are scarce recommendations in therapy based on these differences. It is of utmost importance to identify whether these SDs determine a modified clinical response and the potential practical implications for this, to provide a base for personalized medicine. AREA OF UNCERTAINTY: The aim of this article was to outline the most important pharmacological drivers of cardiovascular drugs that differ between women and men, along with their implications and challenges in clinical practice. DATA SOURCES: A detailed assessment of English-written resources reflecting SDs impact in CV drug pharmacology was performed using PubMed and Embase databases. RESULTS: Despite large variations in CV drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in individuals, correcting for height, weight, surface area, and body composition compensate for most "sex-dependent" differences. In addition, individual, cultural, and social factors significantly impact disease management in women versus men. Gender-biased prescribing patterns and gender-dependent adherence to therapy also influence outcomes. The development of sex-specific guidelines requires that they should reflect the SDs implications for the management of a disease and that the evidence should be carefully evaluated as to whether there is an adequate representation of both sexes and whether sex-disaggregated data are reported. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacological drivers are under the influence of an impressive number of differences between women and men. However, to establish their significance in clinical practice, an adequate representation of women in studies and the reporting of distinct results is mandatory.

Randomized Trial Comparing a Stent-Avoiding With a Stent-Preferred Strategy in Complex Femoropopliteal Lesions.

BACKGROUND: Limited comparative data exist on different interventional strategies for endovascular revascularization of complex femoropopliteal interventions. OBJECTIVES: In this study, the authors aimed to compare a stent-avoiding (SA) vs a stent-preferred (SP) strategy, promoting optimal lesion preparation and the use of drug-eluting technologies in both arms. METHODS: Within a prospective, multicenter, pilot study, 120 patients with symptomatic complex femoropopliteal lesions (Rutherford classification 2-4, mean lesion length 187.7 ± 78.3 mm, 79.2% total occlusions) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 fashion to endovascular treatment with either paclitaxel-coated balloons or polymer-coated, paclitaxel-eluting stents. Lesion preparation including the use of devices for plaque modification and/or removal was at the operators' discretion in both treatment arms. RESULTS: In the SA group, lesion preparation was more frequently performed (71.7% SA [43/60] vs 51.7% [31/60] SP; P = 0.038) with a high provisional stenting rate (48.3% [29/60]). At the 12-month follow-up, primary patency was 78.2% (43/55) in the SA group and 78.6% (44/56) in the SP group (P = 1.0; relative risk: 0.995; 95% CI: 0.818-1.210). Freedom from major adverse events was determined in 93.1% (54/58) in the SA group and in 94.9% (56/59) in the SP group (P = 0.717; relative risk: 0.981; 95% CI: 0.895-1.075), with all adverse events attributable to clinically driven target lesion revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: Both endovascular strategies promoting lesion preparation before the use of drug-eluting devices suggest promising efficacy and safety results in complex femoropopliteal procedures with a high proportion of total occlusions through 12 months. Ongoing follow-up will show whether different results emerge over time. (Best Endovascular Strategy for Complex Lesions of the Superficial Femoral Artery [BEST-SFA]; NCT03776799).

Treatment Patterns, Outcomes, and Persistence to Newly Started Heart Failure Medications in Patients with Worsening Heart Failure: A Cohort Study from the United States and Germany.

BACKGROUND: Data are limited regarding guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) treatment patterns in patients with worsening heart failure (HF). METHODS: We used administrative claims databases in Germany and the USA to conduct a retrospective cohort study of patients with worsening HF. Two cohorts of patients with prevalent HF and a HF hospitalization (HFH) from 2016 to 2019, alive at discharge (N = 75,140 USA; N = 47,003 Germany) were identified. Index date was the first HFH during the study period. One-year HF rehospitalization and mortality rates were calculated and a composite endpoint of both outcomes assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimation. We evaluated HF medication patterns in the 6 months before and after the index date. New users of a HF medication (at discharge/after index HFH) were followed for 1 year to evaluate persistence (no treatment gaps > 2 months) RESULTS: One-year HF rehospitalization rates were 36.2% (USA) and 47.7% (Germany). One year mortality rates were 30.0% (USA) and 23.0% (Germany), and the composite endpoint (mortality/HF rehospitalization) was reached in 55.1 % (USA) and 56.6% (Germany). Kaplan-Meier plots showed the risk for the composite endpoint was high in the early post discharge period. Comparison of patterns pre- and postindex HFH showed some increase in use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), and triple therapy; use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor/ angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) plus beta-blockers remained constant/slightly declined; < 20% patients received triple therapy (ACE inhibitor/ARB plus beta-blocker plus MRA). A third of patients were new users; 1 year persistence rates were often low. CONCLUSIONS: Morbidity, mortality, and rehospitalization risk is high among patients with worsening HF; uptake and continuation of GDMT is suboptimal.

Effects on physical activity, physical fitness and well-being in a 36-months randomized controlled study, comparing a multimodal hospital-based intervention programme for primary cardiovascular prevention with usual care.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is a major cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide, and primary prevention efforts are poorly developed in people at high cardiovascular risk. On this background, we performed the Hjerteløftet Study and demonstrated that participation over 36 months in a multimodal primary prevention programme, significantly reduced validated cardiovascular risk scores. In the current substudy we aimed to further explore several elements and effects following the intervention programme. METHODS: A random sample from the original Hjerteløftet Study was included for further examinations (n = 255, 40% women), and these patients were already randomized to an intervention group (IG) (n = 127), or a control group (CG) (n = 128). We compared changes from baseline to 36-months follow-up in physical activity, cardiorespiratory fitness, psychological well-being (WHO-5), cardiovascular medication use, smoking habits, and cardiometabolic risk factors (blood pressure, lipids, blood glucose, HbA1c, Apolipoprotein A-I, Apolipoprotein B and high-sensitive C-reactive protein). RESULTS: Self-reported physical activity increased significantly with absolute difference in mean delta Physical Activity Index score in the IG compared to the CG: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.10 to 1.70, p = 0.028 (ANCOVA). There were no corresponding differences in cardiorespiratory fitness. The participation resulted in psychological well-being improvement in both groups with a larger increase in the IG compared to the CG. The mean difference in delta WHO-5 score was 5.06, 95% CI: 0.68 to 9.45, p = 0.024, and 3.28, 95% CI: -0.69 to 5.25, p = 0.104 when controlled for baseline values (ANCOVA). The use of antihypertensive medication increased significantly more in the CG (p = 0.044). Only minor, nonsignificant changes were observed for traditional risk factors and cardiometabolic variables. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in the Hjerteløftet Study intervention programme resulted in an improved physical activity level, but without changing cardiorespiratory fitness. Participation in the programme also tended to improve psychological well-being, possibly related to increased physical activity, less smoking and less use of cardiovascular medication. Concerning the metabolic status, no major differences were observed, but minor changes may have been concealed by a larger increase in cardiovascular medication use in the control group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01741428), 04/12/2012.

Dietary Influence on Drug Efficacy: A Comprehensive Review of Ketogenic Diet-Pharmacotherapy Interactions.

It is widely acknowledged that the ketogenic diet (KD) has positive physiological effects as well as therapeutic benefits, particularly in the treatment of chronic diseases. Maintaining nutritional ketosis is of utmost importance in the KD, as it provides numerous health advantages such as an enhanced lipid profile, heightened insulin sensitivity, decreased blood glucose levels, and the modulation of diverse neurotransmitters. Nevertheless, the integration of the KD with pharmacotherapeutic regimens necessitates careful consideration. Due to changes in their absorption, distribution, metabolism, or elimination, the KD can impact the pharmacokinetics of various medications, including anti-diabetic, anti-epileptic, and cardiovascular drugs. Furthermore, the KD, which is characterised by the intake of meals rich in fats, has the potential to impact the pharmacokinetics of specific medications with high lipophilicity, hence enhancing their absorption and bioavailability. However, the pharmacodynamic aspects of the KD, in conjunction with various pharmaceutical interventions, can provide either advantageous or detrimental synergistic outcomes. Therefore, it is important to consider the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions that may arise between the KD and various drugs. This assessment is essential not only for ensuring patients' compliance with treatment but also for optimising the overall therapeutic outcome, particularly by mitigating adverse reactions. This highlights the significance and necessity of tailoring pharmacological and dietetic therapies in order to enhance the effectiveness and safety of this comprehensive approach to managing chronic diseases.

Image testing based on biomedical drug loading in cardiovascular drug care simulation for coronary heart disease.

Coronary heart disease is a common cardiovascular disease, and its therapeutic effect is affected by the distribution and absorption of drugs in the body. Biomedical drug-carrying image testing technology can provide a quantitative assessment of drug distribution and absorption in the body. This study aims to explore the application of biomedical drug-carrying image testing technology in the simulation of cardiovascular drug care in coronary heart disease, so as to provide reference for the optimization of drug treatment plan and individualized treatment. The study collected clinical data and medication regiments of patients with coronary heart disease. Then, the imaging examination of patients was carried out by selecting appropriate drug loading markers using the biomedical drug loading image examination technology. Then quantitative analysis was used to process the image data to quantitatively evaluate the distribution and absorption of drugs in the cardiovascular system. The quantitative data of drug distribution and absorption in patients with coronary heart disease have been obtained successfully by means of biomedical imaging. These data reveal the dynamic changes of drugs in the cardiovascular system, and help doctors optimize drug therapy, improve treatment effectiveness, and achieve personalized treatment.