Comparison by meta-analysis of eptifibatide and tirofiban to abciximab in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention

The role of platelet glycoprotein IIb / IIIa inhibitors in current treatment of acute coronary syndrome

Current management of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) includes a dual antiplatelet therapy with acetylsalicylic acid and a platelet P2Y12 receptor inhibitor. For patients without a high risk of bleeding, prasugrel and ticagrelor are preferred, since their effect is more pronounced, less dependent on metabolism of a specific patient, and occurs faster that the effect of clopidogrel. The prescription rate of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa (GP IIb / IIIa) receptor inhibitors has considerably decreased. However, these drugs remain relevant in percutaneous coronary interventions in patients with a high risk of coronary thrombosis or a massive coronary thrombus, in thrombotic complications of the procedure, and in the "no-reflow" phenomenon. The intravenous route of GP IIb / IIIa inhibitor administration provides their effectiveness in patients with difficulties of drug intake or with impaired absorption of oral medications. This review presents clinical and pharmacological characteristics of various GP IIb / IIIa inhibitors and data of randomized clinical studies and registries of recent years that evaluated results of their use in patients with ACS.

Efficacy outcomes and safety measures of intravenous tirofiban or eptifibatide for patients with acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies

To review the literature for randomized control trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies investigating the safety and efficacy of tirofiban and eptifibatide in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library were searched for available papers published up to September 2021. The efficacy was evaluated based on the 3-month favorable outcome [modified Rankin scale (mRS) = 0-1], functional outcome (mRS = 0-2), and the last available National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score measured in each study. Twelve studies (two RCTs and 10 prospective cohorts) and 2926 patients were included. Treatment with tirofiban or eptifibatide had no effects on the favorable outcome (RR = 1.09, 95% CI 0.89-1.35, P = 0.411), functional outcome (RR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.98-1.28, P = 0.010), and last available NIHSS (WMD = - 2.32, 95% CI - 5.14 to 0.50, P = 0.106), but might increase mortality (RR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.71-0.99, P = 0.121). The sensitivity analyses showed that the meta-analyses were robust. There was no significant publication bias. Tirofiban did not increase the risk of ICH (P = 0. 423) and sICH (P = 0. 990) but increased the risk of fatal ICH (RR = 3.59, 95% CI 1.62-7.96, P = 0.002). Thrombolysis/thrombectomy did not influence any of the outcomes. Adding tirofiban or eptifibatide to thrombolysis/thrombectomy was not significantly associated with a favorable outcome (mRS = 0-1) nor functional outcome (mRS = 0-2) in patients with AIS at 3 months, but might be associated with mortality, possibly due to fatal ICH. The NIHSS was also not significantly different between the intervention and control groups after treatments.

Efficacy and safety of eptifibatide versus tirofiban in acute coronary syndrome patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors were the strongest available antiplatelet therapy and have been shown to reduce cardiac ischemic complications in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. However, evidences are still lacking on the superiority of eptifibatide over tirofiban or vice versa in patients with acute coronary syndrome.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of eptifibatide and tirofiban used among patients with acute coronary syndrome by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in Pubmed, Ovid/Medline, Ovid/Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov, CBM and CNKI to identify randomized controlled trials comparing eptifibatide with tirofiban for acute coronary syndrome until November 2015. The methodological quality was assessed with the Cochrane bias risk assessment tool.

RESULTS

1256 patients from 9 randomized controlled trials were finally included. Compared with tirofiban, eptifibatide could reduce more risk of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction minor bleeding (RR 0.61, 95%CI 0.38, 0.98). However, no significant differences were observed for major adverse cardiac events (RR 0.41, 95%CI 0.15 to 1.12), major bleeding, thrombocytopenia in the two treatment groups. The relative treatment benefits were similar in subgroups of patients according to types of acute coronary syndrome, or undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

CONCLUSION

Available evidence suggests that the safety of eptifibatide is slightly superior to tirofiban in patients with acute coronary syndrome, but no significant difference was observed on efficacy. Future studies should focus on the randomized controlled trials with larger sample, multi-center, long-term follow-up, high quality to compare the two drugs.

Evaluation of Short- and Long-Term Efficacy of Combined Intracoronary Administration of High-Dose Adenosine and Tirofiban during Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

BACKGROUND

To assess the influence of combined intracoronary application of high-dose adenosine and tirofiban in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on clinical events and cardiac function.

METHODS

Our study evaluated consecutive patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary PCI, who were randomly divided into adenosine group (n = 130) and control group (n = 128). Combined with thrombus aspiration and then intracoronary tirofiban, the adenosine group received intracoronary adenosine (2 mg) through the aspiration catheter 2 times. After thrombus aspiration and stenting of the infarct- related artery, the control group received placebo. The primary endpoint of our investigation was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at the 1-year and 3-year marks. The secondary endpoint comprised left ventricular remodeling (LVR) at 6 months, myocardial blush grade (MBG), thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade and corrected TIMI frame count (CTFC) after PCI.

RESULTS

Our study found that TIMI flow grade post-PCI did not differ significantly between the 2 groups, while CTFC favored the adenosine-treated patients (21.6 ± 6.5 vs. 25.1 ± 7.8, p = 0.001). Although the adenosine group achieved a higher rate of MBG 3 (45.1% vs. 32.0%, p = 0.035) and MBG 2-3 (76.2% vs. 62.3%, p = 0.018) than the control group, the incidences of MACE at 1 year (20.0% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.373) and 3 years (26.9% vs. 32.0%, p = 0.413) were comparable. LVR occurred in 23.1% (27/117) of adenosine-treated patients and in 29.8% (43/114) of the controls (p = 0.296).

CONCLUSIONS

Intracoronary administration of high-dose adenosine combined with intracoronary tirofiban and thrombus aspiration may further improve myocardial perfusion after primary PCI.

Tirofiban combined with urokinase selective intra-arterial thrombolysis for the treatment of middle cerebral artery occlusion

The aims of the present study were to establish a model of embolic stroke in rabbits and to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intra-arterially administered tirofiban combined with urokinase thrombolysis. The middle cerebral artery occlusion model (MCAO) of embolic stroke was established in New Zealand rabbits via an autologous clot. The model rabbits were allocated at random into four groups: Tirofiban group (T group), urokinase group (UK group), tirofiban and urokinase group (T + UK group) and the control group (C group). The recanalization rate, relative-apparent diffusion coefficient (rADC) and neurological function deficit score (NFDS) values were compared among the four groups. The recanalization rate, rADC and NFDS values were improved in the T + UK group compared with the other groups. In summary, the intra-arterial administration of tirofiban combined with urokinase thrombolysis was a more effective intervention in an MCAO model compared with intra-arterial urokinase alone, and may promote reperfusion and reduce infarct volume.

The effects of tirofiban infusion on clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI

Objective:

The present study was designed to determine the effects of tirofiban (Tiro) infusion on angiographic measures, ST-segment resolution, and clinical outcomes in patients with STEMI undergoing PCI. Glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitors are beneficial in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), while the most effective timing of administration is still under investigation.

Methods:

A total of 1242 patients (83.0% males, mean (standard deviation; SD) age: 54.7 (10.9) years) with STEMI who underwent primary PCI were included in this retrospective non-randomized study in four groups, composed of no tirofiban infusion [Tiro (-); n=248], tirofiban infusion before PCI (pre-Tiro; n=720), tirofiban infusion during PCI (peri-Tiro; n=50), and tirofiban infusion after PCI (post-Tiro; n=224). In all Tiro (+) patients, bolus administration of Tiro (10 pg/kg) was followed by infusion (0.15 pg/kg/min) for a mean (SD) duration of 22.4±6.8 hours.

Results:

The pre-PCI Tiro group was associated with the highest percentage of patients with TIMI 3 flow (99.4%; p<0.001), the lowest corrected TIMI frame count [21(18-23.4); p<0.001], the highest percentage of patients with >75% ST-segment resolution (78.1%; p<0.001), and the lowest rate of in-hospital sudden cardiac death and in-hospital all-cause mortality (3.2%, p<0.05, 3.3%, p=0.01). Major bleeding was reported in 18 (1.8%) patients who received tirofiban.

Conclusion:

Use of standard-dose bolus tirofiban in addition to aspirin, high-dose clopidogrel, and unfractionated heparin prior to primary PCI significantly improves myocardial reperfusion, ST-segment resolution, in-hospital mortality rate, and in-hospital sudden cardiac death in patients with STEMI with no increased risk of major bleeding.

Impact of Timing of Eptifibatide Administration on Preprocedural Infarct-Related Artery Patency in Acute STEMI Patients Undergoing Primary PCI

The appropriate timing of eptifibatide initiation for acute ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains unclear. This study aimed to analyze the impact of timing of eptifibatide administration on infarct-related artery (IRA) patency in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI. Acute STEMI patients who underwent primary PCI (n = 324) were enrolled in this retrospective study; 164 patients received eptifibatide bolus ≤ 30 minutes after emergency department (ED) admission (group A) and 160 patients received eptifibatide bolus > 30 minutes after ED admission (group B). The primary endpoint was preprocedural IRA patency. Most patients in group A (90%) and group B (89%) were late presenters (> 2 hours after symptom onset). The two groups had similar preprocedural thrombolysis in myocardial infarction 2 or 3 flow of the IRA (26 vs. 24%, p = not significant [NS]), similar creatine kinase-MB (CK-MB) levels at 8 hours after admission (339 vs. 281 U/L, p = NS), similar left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (52 vs. 50%, p = NS), and similar 30-day mortality (2 vs. 7%, p = NS). Compared with group B, patients in group A had shorter door-to-device time (p < 0.001) and shorter procedural time (p = 0.004), without increased bleeding risk (13 vs. 18%, p = NS). Earlier intravenous administration of eptifibatide before primary PCI did not improve preprocedural IRA patency, CK-MB level at 8 hours after admission, LVEF and 30-day mortality compared with patients who received intravenous eptifibatide that was administered later.

The Safety and Efficacy of 12 Versus 24 Hours of Tirofiban Infusion in Patients Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Aim:

We aimed to investigate the 6-month efficacy and safety of postprocedural 12-hour tirofiban administration versus 24-hour tirofiban administration in patients with ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Methods:

This retrospective study enrolled 349 patients with STEMI who underwent primary PCI. Following the administration of bolus tirofiban after primary PCI, those receiving a 12-hour tirofiban infusion as the maintenance dose were classified as group 1 (n = 123) while those receiving a 24-hour infusion were classified as group 2 (n = 226). In-hospital and 6-month major adverse cardiac events were recorded.

Results:

There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups regarding in-hospital efficacy (in-hospital death: 4.4% vs 5.7%, P = .600 and stent thrombosis 1.8% vs 1.6%, P = .921) and in-hospital safety (2.6% vs 1.6% for major bleeding and 5.3% vs 4.1% for minor bleeding, P = .562). During the 6-month follow-up period, the incidence of the recurrent revascularization (16.1% vs 15.5%, odds ratio [OR] = 1.05 [0.47-3.67]), the repeated nonfatal acute coronary syndrome and/or stent thrombosis (27% vs 24.4%, P = .598, OR = 1.02 [0.42-2.48]), and the cardiovascular deaths (6.6% vs 6.5%, P = .943, OR = 1.03 [0.43-2.43]) were comparable between group 1 and group 2.

Conclusion:

Our study revealed that 12-hour tirofiban administration versus 24-hour tirofiban administration in STEMI who underwent primary PCI was similar with respect to in-hospital efficacy and safety and major adverse cardiac events during 6-month follow-up.

Update on platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors: recommendations for clinical practice

Antiplatelet therapy is the cornerstone of treatment for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptors mediate platelet aggregation, representing the final common pathway of platelet-mediated thrombosis. Therefore, agents blocking this pathway may be desirable for the treatment of patients with ACS and PCI. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors have been widely investigated and have been key to the pharmacological advancements in the field. However, although GPIs have been important to reduce ischemic complications, their elevated risk of bleeding complications remains a major limitation. The poor prognostic implications, including increased mortality, associated with bleeding complication underscores the need for alternative treatment options. Over the past years there have been several advancements in antithrombotic pharmacology which have led to changes in recommendations for GPI usage in clinical practice. This is an overview of the most recent clinical trial data on GPIs, and provides practical insight on their modern day use in ACS therapy.

Comparison of abciximab versus eptifibatide during percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (from the HORIZONS-AMI trial)

There are limited safety and effectiveness data comparing glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in the setting of primary percutaneous coronary intervention. In this substudy of the Harmonizing Outcomes With Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction (HORIZONS-AMI) trial, the clinical and bleeding outcomes of eptifibatide versus abciximab were evaluated in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. Three-year clinical outcomes of patients in the heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor arm were compared according to treatment with abciximab (n = 907) versus eptifibatide (n = 803). Adjudicated end points included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs; mortality, reinfarction, ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization, or stroke), major bleeding, and net adverse clinical events (MACEs or major bleeding). Propensity score matching was used to identify 1,342 matched cases (671 each in the abciximab and eptifibatide groups). Multivariate analysis was performed in the entire cohort and the propensity-matched groups. At 3-year follow-up, eptifibatide and abciximab resulted in nonsignificantly different rates of MACEs (18.3% vs 19.6%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74 to 1.16, p = 0.51), major bleeding (10.7% vs 11.9%, HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.19, p = 0.44), and net adverse clinical events (24.5% vs 25.5%, HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.17, p = 0.69). Similarly, at 3 years by multivariate analysis, there was no statistically significant difference between abciximab and eptifibatide for net adverse clinical events (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09, p = 0.27), MACEs (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.20, p = 0.73), and major bleeding (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.41, p = 0.75). The propensity-matched groups also had similar outcomes. In conclusion, abciximab and eptifibatide have comparable bleeding risks and clinical efficacy in primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Pre PCI hospital antithrombotic therapy for ST elevation myocardial infarction: striving for consensus

Strong evidence exists in favor of rapid transfer of a patient suffering an ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) to the nearest hospital with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) capability, assuming the time from first medical contact to balloon inflation can be achieved in less than 90 min. In many areas, PCI hospitals have successfully collaborated with regional non-PCI hospitals to provide primary PCI for STEMI; however, significant variations exist in how these programs are executed. For example, the pre PCI hospital administration of antithrombotic agents by emergency medical personnel can include aspirin, clopidogrel, unfractionated heparin, low molecular weight heparin, partial or full dose fibrinolytics or combinations thereof. There is little consensus on the optimal cocktail, dose and route of administration. Standardizing the pre PCI antithrombotic regimen across hospital systems may be one approach to improve timely administration of these therapies, and potentially improve STEMI outcomes.

Assessing the role of eptifibatide in patients with diffuse coronary disease undergoing drug-eluting stenting: the INtegrilin plus STenting to Avoid myocardial Necrosis Trial

BACKGROUND

The optimal antiplatelet regimen in elective patients undergoing complex percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) is uncertain. We aimed to assess the impact of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa (GpIIb/IIIa) inhibition with eptifibatide in clinically stable subjects with diffuse coronary lesions.

METHODS

Patients with stable coronary artery disease undergoing PCI by means of implantation of >33 mm of drug-eluting stent were single-blindedly randomized to heparin plus eptifibatide versus heparin alone. The primary end point was the rate of abnormal post-PCI creatine kinase-MB mass values. Secondary end points were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) (ie, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization) and MACE plus bailout GpIIb/IIIa inhibitor use.

RESULTS

The study was stopped for slow enrollment and funding issues after including a total of 91 patients: 44 were randomized to heparin plus eptifibatide, and 47, to heparin alone. Analysis for the primary end point showed a trend toward lower rates of abnormal post-PCI creatine kinase-MB mass values in the heparin-plus-eptifibatide group (18 [41%]) versus the heparin-alone group (26 [55%], relative risk 0.74 [95% CI 0.48-1.15], P = .169). Similar nonstatistically significant trends were found for rates of MACE, their components, or MACE plus bailout GpIIb/IIIa inhibitors (all P > .05). Notably, heparin plus eptifibatide proved remarkably safe because major bleedings or minor bleeding was uncommon and nonsignificantly different in both groups (all P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Given its lack of statistical power, the INSTANT study cannot definitively provide evidence against or in favor of routine eptifibatide administration in stable patients undergoing implantation of multiple drug-eluting stent for diffuse coronary disease. However, the favorable trend evident for the primary end point warrants further larger randomized studies.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing intracoronary and intravenous administration of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction

Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors (GPIs) have been widely adopted as an adjuvant regimen during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, but whether intracoronary administration of these potent antiplatelet agents conveys better efficacy and safety over the intravenous route has not been well addressed. A meta-analysis was performed by a systematic search of the published research for randomized controlled trials comparing intracoronary versus intravenous administration of GPIs in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Eight studies involving 686 patients in the intracoronary arm and 660 in the intravenous arm met the inclusion criteria. Postprocedural Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) grade 3 flow (odds ratio [OR] 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08 to 1.98, p <0.05) and myocardial reperfusion grade 2 or 3 (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.46, p <0.001) were markedly more often achieved in patients who received intracoronary boluses of GPIs than those receiving the intravenous strategy. Intracoronary administration resulted in a reduced incidence of mortality (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.92, p <0.05), target vessel revascularization (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.99, p <0.05), and the composite end point of major adverse cardiac events (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.76, p <0.005) at 30-day follow-up. No significant difference was found in terms of major or minor bleeding (OR 1.14, p = 0.71, and OR 0.86, p = 0.47 respectively). In conclusion, intracoronary administration of GPIs yielded favorable outcomes in postprocedural blood flow restoration and 30-day clinical prognosis in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. The intracoronary use of GPIs can be recommended as a preferred regimen during primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Treatment with tirofiban for acute coronary syndrome (ACS): a systematic review and network analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of tirofiban in comparison to usual care or other GPIIb/IIIa antagonists (eptifibatide and abciximab). Results were analysed by drug administration with planned percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or as medical management without planned PCI, and separately for STEMI or NSTE ACS patients.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A systematic review was performed of randomized controlled trials of tirofiban, abciximab, eptifibatide or usual care given to patients with acute coronary syndrome. Nine databases were searched up to March 2010. Pair-wise meta-analysis was used to combine all available direct comparisons; indirect comparisons and network analysis were performed when this was not possible. The primary outcome was MACE (major adverse cardiac event).

RESULTS

The search yielded 8, 119 records and 50 trials were included (total number of patients = 52,958). Compared to usual care, high and medium-dose tirofiban (25 and 10 µg/kg/min) administered with planned PCI reduced MACE at 30 days for patients with STEMI (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45, 0.99; RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.10, 0.80), but was not effective as a medical management. Medium-dose tirofiban (10 µg/kg/min) administered with planned PCI or low dose (0.4 µg/kg/min) as medical management reduced the risk of MACE for patients with NSTE ACS (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.21, 0.75; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.41, 0.83) in comparison to usual care, but at the expense of increased thrombocytopenia (RR 3.26, 95% CI 1.31, 8.13). Evidence from RCTs and network analysis indicated tirofiban and abciximab were equally effective and safe. Comparing tirofiban and eptifibatide treatment by indirect and network analysis produced inconclusive results.

CONCLUSIONS

Tirofiban was more effective than usual care for STEMI and NSTE ACS patients receiving planned PCI, and NSTE ACS patients receiving medical management. Tirofiban and abciximab were equally effective. Comparisons of tirofiban and eptifibatide were inconclusive.

Current antithrombotic agents for acute coronary syndromes: focus on bleeding risk

The formation of an intravascular thrombus underlies the clinical symptoms associated with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Plaque rupture signals the recruitment and activation of platelets, initiation of the coagulation cascade, and generation of thrombin, resulting in the formation of a platelet-rich thrombus. Use of antithrombotic therapy, including antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents, is a crucial element in reducing the overall morbidity and mortality in patients with ACS. Current antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapies act on distinct sites in platelet activation pathways and the coagulation cascade, but because these agents target pathways necessary for protective hemostasis, their use increases the risk for bleeding complications. Previously, bleeding was considered an unavoidable side effect of ACS management with few clinical implications; however, bleeding has since been shown to be an independent predictor of short- and long-term mortality in patients with ACS. Therefore, the prevention of bleeding has become equally as important as the prevention of further ischemic events. Strategies to limit bleeding include bleeding risk stratification, appropriate dosing of antithrombotic drugs, use of the lowest dose of aspirin with proven efficacy, avoidance of combinations of antithrombotic agents unless for a proven indication, use of drugs proven to reduce the risk of bleeding, and choice of radial access over femoral access in case of invasive strategy. In this context, several novel therapeutic approaches are currently under clinical evaluation, including new antiplatelet agents, such as protease-activated receptor 1 antagonists, and new anticoagulants, such as direct-acting antagonists of factor Xa and factor IIa (thrombin). This review discusses antiplatelet and anticoagulant treatment strategies for the management of ACS, with a particular focus on their associated bleeding risks.

The original sin committed in years two thousand

Contemporary treatment of ST segment elevation myocardial infarction requires the use of potent antithrombotic drugs. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, especially abciximab, have been used diffusely in the last 10 years to help obtain procedural success and conversely to improve clinical outcome. However, the increased bleeding rate associated with this class of drugs is still a matter of concern. This editorial comments on the results of some recently published papers on these "old" drugs, with the auspice of looking at newer, safer drugs.