Does aspirin reduce the benefit of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor? Choosing between the Scylla of observational studies and the Charybdis of subgroup analysis

Medications and Prescribing Patterns as Factors Associated with Hospitalizations from Long-Term Care Facilities: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are at high risk of hospitalization. Medications are a potentially modifiable risk factor for hospitalizations.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to systematically review the association between medications or prescribing patterns and hospitalizations from LTCFs.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA) from inception to August 2017 for longitudinal studies reporting associations between medications or prescribing patterns and hospitalizations. Two independent investigators completed the study selection, data extraction and quality assessment using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 22 cohort studies, five case-control studies, one case-time-control study and one case-crossover study, investigating 13 different medication classes and two prescribing patterns were included. An RCT demonstrated that high-dose influenza vaccination reduced all-cause hospitalization compared with standard-dose vaccination (risk ratio [RR] 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-0.98). Another RCT found no difference in hospitalization rates between oseltamivir as influenza treatment and oseltamivir as treatment plus prophylaxis (treatment = 4.7%, treatment and prophylaxis = 3.5%; p = 0.7). The third RCT found no difference between multivitamin/mineral supplementation and hospitalization (odds ratio [OR] 0.94; 95% CI 0.74-1.20) or emergency department visits (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.76-1.47). Two cohort studies demonstrated influenza vaccination reduced hospitalization. Four studies suggested polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) increased all-cause hospitalization. However, associations between polypharmacy (two studies), PIMs (one study) and fall-related hospitalizations were inconsistent. Inconsistent associations were found between psychotropic medications with all-cause and cause-specific hospitalizations (11 studies). Warfarin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, pantoprazole and vinpocetine but not long-term acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin), statins, trimetazidine, digoxin or β-blockers were associated with all-cause or cause-specific hospitalizations in single studies of specific resident populations. Most cohort studies assessed prevalent rather than incident medication exposure, and no studies considered time-varying medication use.

CONCLUSION

High-quality evidence suggests influenza vaccination reduces hospitalization. Polypharmacy and PIMs are consistently associated with increased all-cause hospitalization.

Zofenopril and Ramipril in Combination with Acetyl Salicylic Acid in Postmyocardial Infarction Patients with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction: A Retrospective Analysis of the SMILE-4 Randomized, Double-Blind Study in Diabetic Patients

OBJECTIVE

In the SMILE-4 study, zofenopril + acetyl salicylic acid (ASA) was more effective than ramipril + ASA on 1-year prevention of major cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by left ventricular dysfunction. In this retrospective analysis, we evaluated drug efficacy in subgroups of patients, according to a history of diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

The primary study endpoint was 1-year combined occurrence of death or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes. Diabetes was defined according to medical history (previous known diagnosis).

RESULTS

A total of 562 of 693 (81.0%) patients were classified as nondiabetics and 131 (18.9%) as diabetics. The adjusted rate of MACE was lower under zofenopril than under ramipril in both nondiabetics [27.9% vs. 34.9% ramipril; odds ratio, OR and 95% confidence interval: 0.55 (0.35, 0.86)] and diabetics [30.9% vs. 41.3%; 0.56 (0.18, 1.73)], although the difference was statistically significant only for the nondiabetic group (P = 0.013). Zofenopril was superior to ramipril as regards to the primary study endpoint in the subgroup of 157 patients with uncontrolled blood glucose (≥ 126 mg/dL), regardless of a previous diagnosis of diabetes [0.31 (0.10, 0.90), P = 0.030]. Zofenopril significantly reduced the risk of hospitalization for cardiovascular causes in both nondiabetics [0.64 (0.43, 0.96), P = 0.030] and diabetics [0.38 (0.15, 0.95), P = 0.038], whereas it was not better than ramipril in terms of prevention of cardiovascular deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective analysis of the SMILE-4 study confirmed the good efficacy of zofenopril plus ASA in the prevention of long-term MACE also in the subgroup of patients with diabetes mellitus.

Long-term clinical experience with zofenopril

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are extensively used to improve clinical outcome of patients with several cardiovascular diseases. Zofenopril proved to be very effective in patients with coronary artery disease and myocardial infarction, thanks to its unique effective mechanism of action for improving blood pressure control, left ventricular function and myocardial ischemia burden, as well as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition. The SMILE project involved more than 3500 patients with coronary artery disease and demonstrated that zofenopril treatment may reduce mortality and morbidity in patients with myocardial infarction, also when combined with acetyl salicylic acid and to a greater extent than lisinopril and ramipril. In addition, the results of the SMILE-ISCHEMIA study have demonstrated an interesting anti-ischemic effect of zofenopril, and these properties largely contribute to the overall clinical benefit of the drug. The effects of zofenopril on blood pressure control and cardiovascular protection clearly support its primary role for prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases.

POTENTIAL OF THE MODERN ACE INHIBITOR ZOFENOPRIL IN CLINICAL PRACTICE: CARDIOPROTECTIVE, ANTI-ISCHEMIC, AND ANTIATHEROGENIC EFFECTS

The review discusses various aspects of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor therapy in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), including acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The focus is on the modern ACE inhibitor zofenopril, its specific pharmacological characteristics, and additional cardioprotective, anti-ischemic, and antiatherogenic effects. The existing evidence of clinical effectiveness of zofenopril and its potential for a wider use in clinical practice are also addressed. 

Antiplatelet therapy in acute coronary syndromes: implications for nursing practice

The care of cardiovascular patients experiencing a myocardial infarction (MI) has evolved from simple bed rest and relief of pain to complex interventions and multiple medications that target both the short- and long-term risks associated with atherosclerosis and ischemia. Even the terminology has changed, from MI to acute coronary syndromes (ACSs). The term, acute coronary syndrome, refers to the clinical symptoms resulting from acute myocardial ischemia; it encompasses unstable angina, non-ST-elevation MI, and ST-elevation MI. Antiplatelet therapies are critically important in the management of patients with ACS. Antiplatelet therapies interfere with platelet aggregation and platelet activation both acutely and chronically and thus impact the development of acute MI. Thus, they are prescribed for millions of patients with ACS. As a result of this progress in treatment, nursing management of persons with ACS has also evolved. This article reviews the pathophysiology of ACS, the role of antiplatelet therapies, their effects on platelet adhesion, and the role of the nurse in caring for patients with ACS who are prescribed these important therapies.

[Heart failure in 2006]

This article are summarizes the most relevant articles in the field of heart failure including epidemiology, diagnostic and therapeutic issues. Therapy includes drugs, cardiac resinchronization therapy, automatic implantable defibrillator, heart transplantation and cell therapy. Stem cell therapy is feasible and short term data indicates it is safe. However there are unresolved concerns on arrhythmias, restenosis and efficacy. At this point experts recommend that medium-sized randomized controlled trials, using surrogate endpoints, should be carried out to establish the efficacy and safety of this form of treatment.