Empagliflozin and colchicine in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction following ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a randomized, double-blinded, three-arm parallel-group, controlled trial.

PURPOSE: There is accumulating evidence regarding the potential benefits of empagliflozin in individuals with acute myocardial infarction (MI). Based on the literature, colchicine could also reduce the risk of MI and death in individuals with cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, trials investigating the effects of the combination of empagliflozin with colchicine and high-dose empagliflozin monotherapy in this setting are lacking. METHODS: In this trial, 106 non-diabetic participants with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) following recent ST-elevation MI were randomly assigned to empagliflozin 10 mg/day, empagliflozin 10 mg/day plus colchicine 0.5 mg twice daily, or empagliflozin 25 mg/day groups within 72 h after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The study's primary outcomes were the changes in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) over 12 weeks. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics of individuals were statistically similar between the study groups. Changes in NYHA functional class over 12 weeks were not significantly different between the study groups. hs-CRP was significantly reduced in all groups (all P < 0.001); however, there was no significant change between the groups over the study period. Changes in tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), LVEF, and left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) during the research period did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSION: This study showed that neither the combination treatment of empagliflozin 10 mg/day with colchicine nor the monotherapy of empagliflozin 25 mg/day was superior to empagliflozin 10 mg/day in terms of changes in clinical, inflammatory, and echocardiographic outcome parameters in patients with recent MI with reduced LVEF over 3 months. Further studies are warranted to confirm the findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial ID: IRCT20111206008307N39. Registration date: 27 October 2022. https://www.irct.ir/trial/66216.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors in individuals with ischemia reperfusion injury: A systematic review.

Background: The effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors on ischemia reperfusion injury (IRI) is a novel concept and only limited number of animals studies have yet been investigated. We aimed to perform a systematic review of literature to explore the clinical studies which investigated the effects of SGLT-2 inhibitors on myocardial IRI setting.Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception until December 7th, 2023. ClinicalTrials.gov was also explored for ongoing studies. Two authors independently conducted the literature search, examined the studies, and evaluated the eligibility criteria. Any disagreements or uncertainties were resolved by the corresponding author. The search strategy followed the PICO process (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome) and Emtree was used to select relevant keywords.Results: Of 220 articles identified from the literature research, five articles were included in the study, of which three studies lately were retracted. The remaining studies included 1229 participants, with 209 receiving SGLT-2 inhibitors and 1090 not receiving them. All of the participants were diabetic patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The results demonstrated that the use of SGLT-2 inhibitors is associated with lower troponin levels, and higher rates of ST resolution. The results of the studies also showed smaller infarct sizes, lower inflammatory biomarkers and improved left ventricular function at discharge among SGLT-2 inhibitor users.Conclusion: In line with in vivo and ex vivo findings, the results of this systematic review supported benefits of SGLT-2 inhibitors in IRI through reducing infarct size and inflammatory biomarkers. However, further clinical trials are warranted to provide robust evidence.

Monkeypox treatment: Current evidence and future perspectives.

As of September 11, 2022, 57 669 reports of monkeypox infection raised global concern. Previous vaccinia virus vaccination can protect from monkeypox. However, after smallpox eradication, immunization against that was stopped. Indeed, therapeutic options following the disease onset are of great value. This study aimed to review the available evidence on virology and treatment approaches for monkeypox and provide guidance for patient care and future studies. Since no randomized clinical trials were ever performed, we reviewed monkeypox animal model studies and clinical trials on the safety and pharmacokinetics of available medications. Brincidofovir and tecovirimat were the most studied medications that got approval for smallpox treatment according to the Animal Rule. Due to the conserved virology among Orthopoxviruses, available medications might also be effective against monkeypox. However, tecovirimat has the strongest evidence to be effective and safe for monkeypox treatment, and if there is a choice between the two drugs, tecovirimat has shown more promise so far. The risk of resistance should be considered in patients who failed to respond to tecovirimat. Hence, the target-based design of novel antivirals will enhance the availability and spectrum of effective anti-Orthopoxvirus agents.

SARS-CoV-2-associated organs failure and inflammation: a focus on the role of cellular and viral microRNAs.

SARS-CoV-2 has been responsible for the recent pandemic all over the world, which has caused many complications. One of the hallmarks of SARS-CoV-2 infection is an induced immune dysregulation, in some cases resulting in cytokine storm syndrome, acute respiratory distress syndrome and many organs such as lungs, brain, and heart that are affected during the SARS-CoV-2 infection. Several physiological parameters are altered as a result of infection and cytokine storm. Among them, microRNAs (miRNAs) might reflect this poor condition since they play a significant role in immune cellular performance including inflammatory responses. Both host and viral-encoded miRNAs are crucial for the successful infection of SARS-CoV-2. For instance, dysregulation of miRNAs that modulate multiple genes expressed in COVID-19 patients with comorbidities (e.g., type 2 diabetes, and cerebrovascular disorders) could affect the severity of the disease. Therefore, altered expression levels of circulating miRNAs might be helpful to diagnose this illness and forecast whether a COVID-19 patient could develop a severe state of the disease. Moreover, a number of miRNAs could inhibit the expression of proteins, such as ACE2, TMPRSS2, spike, and Nsp12, involved in the life cycle of SARS-CoV-2. Accordingly, miRNAs represent potential biomarkers and therapeutic targets for this devastating viral disease. In the current study, we investigated modifications in miRNA expression and their influence on COVID-19 disease recovery, which may be employed as a therapy strategy to minimize COVID-19-related disorders.

Investigational antiviral drugs for the treatment of COVID-19 patients.

In the current pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), antiviral drugs are at the center of attention because of their critical role against severe acute respiratory disease syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In addition to designing new antivirals against SARS-COV-2, a drug repurposing strategy is a practical approach for treating COVID-19. A brief insight about antivirals would help clinicians to choose the best medication for the treatment of COVID-19. In this review, we discuss both novel and repurposed investigational antivirals, focusing on in vitro, in vivo, and clinical trial studies.

SARS-CoV-2: Receptor and Co-receptor Tropism Probability.

The recent pandemic which arose from China, is caused by a pathogenic virus named "severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)". Its rapid global expansion has inflicted an extreme public health concern. The attachment of receptor-binding domains (RBD) of the spike proteins (S) to the host cell's membrane, with or without the help of other cellular components such as proteases and especially co-receptors, is required for the first stage of its pathogenesis. In addition to humans, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is found on a wide range of vertebrate host's cellular surface. SARS-CoV-2 has a broad spectrum of tropism; thus, it can infect a vast range of tissues, organs, and hosts; even though the surface amino acids of the spike protein conflict in the receptor-binding region. Due to the heterogeneous ACE2 distribution and the presence of different domains on the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein for binding, the virus entry into diverse host cell types may depend on the host cells' receptor presentation with or without co-receptors. This review investigates multiple current types of receptor and co-receptor tropisms, with other molecular factors alongside their respective mechanisms, which facilitate the binding and entry of SARS-CoV-2 into the cells, extending the severity of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Understanding the pathogenesis of COVID-19 from this perspective can effectively help prevent this disease and provide more potent treatment strategies, particularly in vulnerable people with various cellular-level susceptibilities.

A pilot randomized trial of pentoxifylline for the reduction of periprocedural myocardial injury in patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention.

PURPOSE: Periprocedural myocardial injury (PMI) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has received great attention due to its significant association with mortality and morbidity. Accordingly, cardioprotection during PCI is one of the important therapeutic concerns. Regarding the potential cardiovascular benefits of pentoxifylline this study was performed to evaluate whether the pretreatment pentoxifylline could reduce PMI in patients who are undergoing elective PCI. METHODS: A randomized clinical trial on 85 patients undergoing elective PCI was performed. The intervention group (n = 41) received 1200 mg pentoxifylline in divided doses plus the standard treatment before PCI, while the control group (n = 44) received the standard treatment. For assessing myocardial damage during PCI, the levels of CK-MB and troponin-I were measured at baseline, 8, and 24 h after the procedure. Then, patients were followed up for a 1-month period regarding the major adverse cardiac effect. RESULTS: Comparing with the control group, no significant change of CK-MB at 8 (p = 0.315) and 24 h (p = 0.896) after PCI was documented in pentoxifylline group. Similarly, no significant change was found in troponin-I at 8 (p = 0.141) and 24 h (p = 0.256) after PCI. CONCLUSIONS: This study could not support the pretreatment with pentoxifylline in the prevention of PMI in patients undergoing elective PCI. However, the trend was toward the potential benefit of pentoxifylline.

Clinical considerations on monkeypox antiviral medications: An overview.

Monkeypox (mpox), a virus belonging to the orthopoxvirus family, can cause a zoonotic infectious disease with morbidity and cosmetic complications. Therefore, effective antiviral drugs with appropriate safety profiles are important for the treatment of patients with mpox. To date, there is no FDA-approved drug for the treatment of mpox. However, tecovirimat, brincidofovir, and cidofovir are the candidate therapies for the management of mpox. Given the safety concerns following the use of these medications, we aimed to review evidence on the clinical considerations of mpox antiviral medications that will be useful to guide clinicians in the treatment approach. Based on the current evidence, tecovirimat has favorable clinical efficacy, safety, and side effect profile and it can be considered as first-line treatment for mpox.

Evaluating the effects of empagliflozin in preventing myocardial injury in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A double-blind, randomized clinical trial.

Introduction: Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) is a fundamental procedure for coronary artery disease management, yet the risk of adverse events such periprocedural myocardial injury (PMI) persists. This double-blind, randomized clinical trial aims to assess the efficacy of empagliflozin in preventing myocardial injury during PCI procedure. Methods: A total of 90 patients were randomly assigned to two groups A and B; Group A as the intervention group received empagliflozin 25 mg 24 hours before and empagliflozin 10 mg 1-2 hours before coronary intervention and group Bas the control group received placebo at similar intervals. The primary outcome involved comparing baseline, 8-hour, and 24-hour cTnI and baseline and 24-hour hs-CRP levels after PCI in both groups to measure the incidence of periprocedural myocardial injury (PMI) and anti-inflammatory effects of empagliflozin. Results: Baseline cTnI levels with P=0.955, 8 hours after PCI with P=0.469, and 24 hours after the intervention with P=0.980 were not statistically different in the two groups. Baseline levels of hs-CRP in both intervention and control groups were not statistically significantly different (P=0.982). Also, there was no statistically significant difference in hs-CRP levels 24 hours after PCI in two groups (P=0.198). Finally, the results showed that MACEs did not occur in any of the groups. Conclusion: The results of this trial could not express the advantages of acute pretreatment with empagliflozin in preventing PCI-related myocardial injury.

Empagliflozin Effects in Patients with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary PCI: The EMI-STEMI Randomized Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Empagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, improves cardiovascular outcomes in heart failure patients, but data regarding the efficacy of empagliflozin in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is still unclear. The current study aimed to evaluate whether treatment with empagliflozin before primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improves parameters associated with patients' outcomes. METHODS: We randomly assigned 101 non-diabetic and non-heart failure patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who underwent primary PCI to receive either empagliflozin (10 mg before PCI and once daily for 40 days) or placebo, in addition to the standard treatment. The primary outcomes were changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 40 days after PCI, changes in cardiac troponin I (cTnI) and estimates of its area under the curve (AUC) and the peak level, and resolution of ST-segment in > 50% of leads 90 min after PCI. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed in terms of the occurrence of ST-segment resolution > 50% (46.0% versus 45.0%; p = 0.92) and the mean level of cTnI at each time point between the two groups. The estimated mean [standard deviation (SD)] AUC of cTnI was 955.0 (595.7) ng h/ml in the intervention and 999.7 (474.7) ng h/ml in the control groups (p = 0.85) without any significant difference in peak cTnI level. The mean (SD) LVEF 40 days after primary PCI was significantly higher in empagliflozin-treated patients than the placebo group [43.2% (5.8%) versus 39.2% (6.7%); p = 0.002]. CONCLUSION: In this study, no significant differences were observed across the groups in terms of cTnI levels and ST-segment resolution in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI. However, it shed light on the potential benefits of empagliflozin in improving LVEF following STEMI. REGISTRATION: Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials Platform ( https://irct.behdasht.gov.ir/ ) identifier number IRCT20111206008307N42.

Comparison between proactive and retroactive models of medication reconciliation in patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Most research on the impact of medication reconciliation on patient safety focused on the retroactive model, with limited attention given to the proactive model. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to compare the proactive and retroactive models in patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure. METHODS: This prospective, quasi-experimental study was conducted over six months, from June to November 2022, at the cardiology unit of an academic hospital in Iran. Eligible patients were those hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure using a minimum of five regular medications before admission. Medication reconciliation was performed in 81 cases using the proactive model and in 81 using the retroactive model. RESULTS: 556 medications were reconciled using the retroactive model, and 581 were reconciled using the proactive model. In the retroactive cases, 341 discrepancies (both intentional and unintentional) were identified, compared to 231 in the proactive cases. The proportion of patients with at least one unintentional discrepancy was significantly lower in the proactive cases than in the retroactive cases (23.80% versus 74.03%). Moreover, the number of unintentional discrepancies was significantly lower in the proactive cases compared to the retroactive cases (22 out of 231 discrepancies versus 150 out of 341 discrepancies). In the retroactive cases, medication omission was the most frequent type of unintentional discrepancy (44.00). About, 42.70% of reconciliation errors detected in the retroactive cases were judged to have the potential to cause moderate to severe harm. While the average time spent obtaining medication history was similar in both models (00:27 [h: min] versus 00:30), the average time needed to complete the entire process was significantly shorter in the proactive model compared to the retroactive model (00:41 min versus 00:51). CONCLUSION: This study highlighted that the proactive model is a timely and effective method of medication reconciliation, particularly in improving medication safety for high-risk patients.

Effects of citalopram on blood pressure control in depressive patients with hypertension: A randomized clinical trial.

Introduction: Since there is a bi-directional interaction between hypertension and depression, we aimed to evaluate the effects of citalopram administration in the management of hypertension. Methods: A randomized clinical trial was conducted on 72 patients with concomitant depression and hypertension. The intervention group (n=41) received citalopram 20 mg daily plus anti-hypertensive standard treatment, while the control group (n=31) received only the standard treatment. The study's primary endpoint was in-office blood pressure (BP) measurement at baseline and home BP monitoring in the first and second months after entering the study. Results: There were no significant differences in baseline systolic BP (163.3±19.6 vs.164.2±20.3 mm Hg; P=0.910) and diastolic BP (94.5±13.8 vs. 88.2±14.4; P=0.071). After one month, diastolic BP (82.7±11.7 vs. 77.09±12.2; P=0.023) was significantly higher in the control group compared to the intervention group. Two months after the intervention, systolic BP (133.8±16.5 vs. 124.5±12.4; P=0.009) and diastolic BP (80.7±10.3 vs. 73.7±9.7; P=0.002) were significantly decreased in the intervention group compared to the control group. Conclusion: This study supported the beneficial effects of citalopram in lowering BP in patients with concomitant depression and hypertension.

Impact of Clinical Pharmacist-conducted Medication Reconciliation at Admission and Discharge on Medication Safety in Patients Hospitalized with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Most studies have focused on the impact of medication reconciliation on one of the points of hospital admission or discharge. In this study, we aimed to investigate the impact of medication reconciliation at both admission and discharge on medication safety in patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure. METHODS: This was a prospective, single-center, cohort study conducted in a tertiary care cardiovascular hospital from October 2022 to March 2023 on patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure. Patients were considered eligible if they were taking at least five chronic medications prior to hospital admission. Medication reconciliation was carried out for the study patients by a clinical pharmacy team both at admission and discharge. Further, the study patients also received comprehensive discharge counseling as well as post-discharge follow-up and monitoring. RESULTS: Medication reconciliation was applied for 129 patients at admission and 118 of them at discharge. The mean time needed for medication reconciliation presses was 32 min per patient on admission and 22min per patient on discharge. Unintentional medication discrepancies were relatively common both at admission and discharge in the study participants, but compared to admission, discrepancies were less frequent at discharge (178 versus 72). Based on the consensus review, about 30% of identified errors detected at both admission and discharge were judged to have the potential to cause moderate to severe harm to the patient, and most of the clinical pharmacists' recommendations on unintended discrepancies were accepted by physicians and resulted in changes in medication orders (more than 80%). Further, the majority of the participants were 'very satisfied' or 'satisfied' with the clinical pharmacy services provided to them during hospitalization and after hospital discharge (89.90%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrated that heart failure patients are vulnerable to medication discrepancies both at admission and discharge and implementing a comprehensive medication reconciliation by clinical pharmacists could be helpful in improving medication safety in these patients.