Efficacy and Safety of Aspirin for Primary Cardiovascular Risk Prevention in Younger and Older Age: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 173,810 Subjects from 21 Randomized Studies.

AIMS: The efficacy and safety of aspirin for primary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention is controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of aspirin in subjects with no overt CVD, with a focus on age as a treatment modifier. METHODS AND RESULTS: Randomized trials comparing aspirin use versus no aspirin use or placebo were included. The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause death. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. Secondary ischemic and bleeding outcomes were explored. Subgroup analyses were conducted to investigate the consistency of the effect sizes in studies including younger and older individuals, using a cut-off of 65 years. A total of 21 randomized trials including 173,810 individuals at a mean follow-up of 5.3 years were included. Compared with control, aspirin did not reduce significantly the risk of all-cause death (risk ratio: 0.96; 95% confidence interval: 0.92-1.00, p = 0.057). Major adverse cardiovascular events were significantly reduced by 11%, paralleled by significant reductions in myocardial infarction and transient ischemic attack. Major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, and gastrointestinal bleeding were significantly increased by aspirin. There was a significant age interaction for death (p for interaction = 0.007), with aspirin showing a statistically significant 7% relative benefit on all-cause death in studies including younger patients. CONCLUSION: The use of aspirin in subjects with no overt CVD was associated with a neutral effect on all-cause death and a modest lower risk of major cardiovascular events at the price of an increased risk in major bleeding. The benefit of aspirin might be more pronounced in younger individuals.

Selatogrel, a novel P2Y12 inhibitor: a review of the pharmacology and clinical development.

INTRODUCTION: Platelet P2Y12 inhibitors have a key role in reducing thrombotic complications in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and those with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Clopidogrel, prasugrel and ticagrelor are widely prescribed oral P2Y12 receptor antagonists, but numerous clinical and pharmacological factors can lead to impaired gastrointestinal absorption resulting in reduced antithrombotic protection. These observations underscore the need for novel compounds or routes of administration that enable more favorable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles while reducing the risk for thrombotic complications. AREAS COVERED: Selatogrel, formerly known as ACT-246475, is a novel, potent, reversible, and selective non-thienopyridine antagonist of the P2Y12 receptor developed for subcutaneous administration. Results from preclinical, Phase 1 and 2 studies have shown selatogrel to have rapid absorption and sustained and reversible platelet P2Y12 inhibitory effects with a larger therapeutic window compared to the oral P2Y12 inhibitors. Such findings make selatogrel a promising agent to be tested in phase 3 studies. EXPERT OPINION: Advantages of subcutaneous administration of selatogrel are fast onset of action, easy administration and the fecal excretion not requiring dose adjustment based on renal function. These characteristics may translate into an advantage in the peri-procedural setting and in emergency and/or unconscious patients. Selatogrel may represent a viable alternative to intravenous P2Y12 inhibition (i.e. cangrelor), although some aspects need to be further clarified, including side effects, how to switch to oral P2Y12 inhibitor and the association with concomitant drugs.

Risk Stratification in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease: A Practical Walkthrough in the Landscape of Prognostic Risk Models.

Although a combination of multiple strategies to prevent and treat coronary artery disease (CAD) has led to a relative reduction in cardiovascular mortality over recent decades, CAD remains the greatest cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. A variety of individual factors and circumstances other than clinical presentation and treatment type contribute to determining the outcome of CAD. It is increasingly understood that personalised medicine, by taking these factors into account, achieves better results than "one-size-fitsall" approaches. In recent years, the multiplication of risk scoring systems for CAD has generated some degree of uncertainty regarding whether, when and how predictive models should be adopted when making clinical decisions. Against this background, this article reviews the most accepted risk models for patients with evidence of CAD to provide practical guidance within the current landscape of tools developed for prognostic risk stratification.

Clinical Outcomes Following Intravascular Imaging-Guided Versus Coronary Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Stent Implantation: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of 31 Studies and 17,882 Patients.

OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to explore the comparative clinical efficacy of different imaging modalities for guiding percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). BACKGROUND: Coronary angiography (CA) is the standard imaging modality for intraprocedural guidance of PCI. Intracoronary imaging techniques, including intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT), can overcome some limitations of CA. METHODS: Comprehensive hierarchical Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials and adjusted observational studies comparing clinical outcomes of PCI with stent implantation guided by CA, IVUS, or OCT. RESULTS: A total of 31 studies encompassing 17,882 patients were included. Compared with CA guidance, the risks of all-cause death (odds ratio [OR]: 0.74; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.58 to 0.98), myocardial infarction (OR: 0.72; 95% CrI: 0.52 to 0.93), target lesion revascularization (OR: 0.74, 95% CrI: 0.58 to 0.90) and stent thrombosis (OR: 0.42; 95% CrI: 0.20 to 0.72) were significantly reduced by IVUS guidance. PCI guidance using either IVUS or OCT was associated with a significant reduction of major adverse cardiovascular events (OR: 0.79; 95% CrI: 0.67 to 0.91 and OR: 0.68; 95% CrI: 0.49 to 0.97, respectively) and cardiovascular death (OR: 0.47; 95% CrI: 0.32 to 0.66 and OR: 0.31; 95% CrI: 0.13 to 0.66, respectively). No differences in terms of comparative clinical efficacy were found between IVUS and OCT for all the investigated outcomes. Pooled estimates were consistent across several sensitivity analyses. However, the treatment effect of IVUS on all-cause death was neutralized in the analysis restricted to randomized clinical trials (OR: 1.03; 95% CrI: 0.41 to 2.14). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with CA, the use of intravascular imaging techniques for PCI guidance reduces the risk of cardiovascular death and adverse events.