Double-Blind, Multicenter, Active-Controlled, Randomized Clinical Trial to Assess the Safety and Efficacy of Orally Administered Nicorandil in Patients With Stable Angina Pectoris in China

Impact of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors on glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aims

Glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) confers a variety of metabolic benefits in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the impact of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors on GIP levels in T2DM patients.

Methods

Medline (PubMed), CENTER (Cochrane Library), and Embase (Ovid) were searched and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of DPP4 inhibitors on fasting and postprandial GIP levels were obtained. For postprandial GIP, only studies with the data of GIP changes reported as the total area under the curve (AUCGIP) using a meal or oral glucose tolerance test were included. A random-effects model was used for data pooling after incorporating heterogeneity.

Results

Overall, 14 RCTs with 541 T2DM patients were included. Compared to placebo/no treatment, the use of DPP4 inhibitors significantly increased the fasting GIP level (standard mean difference [SMD]: 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48-1.05, P<0.001; I2 = 52%) and postprandial AUCGIP (SMD: 1.33, 95% CI: 1.02-1.64, P<0.001; I2 = 65%). Influence analysis by excluding one dataset at a time showed consistent results. Sensitivity analyses only including studies with radioimmunoassay showed also consistent results (fasting GIP: SMD: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.51-1.00, P<0.001; I2 = 0%; and postprandial AUCGIP: SMD: 1.48, 95% CI: 1.18-1.78, P<0.001; I2 = 54%). Further subgroup analyses demonstrated that the influence of DPP4 inhibitors on fasting and postprandial GIP levels in T2DM patients was not significantly changed by study characteristics such as study design, patient mean age, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration, body mass index (BMI), background treatment, treatment duration, or method for postprandial GIP measurement (all P for subgroup effects <0.05).

Conclusion

The use of DPP4 inhibitors effectively increases the fasting and postprandial GIP concentrations in T2DM patients.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022356716.

Cardioprotective and Antianginal Efficacy of Nicorandil: A Comprehensive Review

ABSTRACT

Angina pectoris remains a significant burden despite advances in medical therapy and coronary revascularization. Many patients (up to 30%) with angina have normal coronary arteries, with coronary microvascular disease and/or coronary artery vasospasm being major drivers of the myocardial demand-supply mismatch. Even among patients revascularized for symptomatic epicardial coronary stenosis, recurrent angina remains highly prevalent. Medical therapy for angina currently centers around 2 disparate goals, viz secondary prevention of hard clinical outcomes and symptom control. Vasodilators, such as nitrates, have been first-line antianginal agents for decades, along with beta-blockers and calcium channel blockers. However, efficacy in symptoms control is heterogenous, depending on underlying mechanism(s) of angina in an individual patient, often necessitating multiple agents. Nicorandil (NCO) is an antianginal agent first discovered in the late 1970s with a uniquely dual mechanism of action. Like a typical nitrate, it mediates medium-large vessel vasodilation through nitric oxide. In addition, NCO has adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-dependent potassium channel agonist activity (K ATP ), mediating microvascular dilatation. Hence, it has proven effective in both coronary artery vasospasm and coronary microvascular disease, typically challenging patient populations. Moreover, emerging evidence suggests that cardiomyocyte protection against ischemia through ischemic preconditioning may be mediated through K ATP agonism. Finally, there is now fairly firm evidence in favor of NCO in terms of hard event reduction among patients with stable coronary artery disease, following myocardial infarction, and perhaps even among patients with congestive heart failure. This review aims to summarize the mechanism of action of NCO, its efficacy as an antianginal, and current evidence behind its impact on hard outcomes. Finally, we review other cardiac and emerging noncardiac indications for NCO use.

Combination of Nicorandil and Beta-Adrenergic Receptor Blockers in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease: A Real-World Observational Study

BACKGROUND

The effect of combined nicorandil and beta-adrenergic receptor blockers (BBs) compared with that of BBs alone on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) remains undetermined.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed. Adult patients who had been hospitalized for CAD and treated for angina with a combination of nicorandil and BBs or BBs alone were included. The effect of different treatments on the cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) and their components within a follow-up duration of 2.5 years were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves. An inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method was used to adjust for the possible effect of confounding factors.

RESULTS

A total of 137,714 patients were screened, of whom 16,912 individuals (mean age: 61.5 years, men: 67.1%) were successfully enrolled. Among the enrolled participants, 4669 received the combined treatment of nicorandil and BBs, while 12,243 received BBs alone. After IPTW, the results demonstrated that the combined treatment was associated with a significantly reduced incidence of MACE (hazard ratio [HR] 0.79, 95% conidence interval [CI] 0.72-0.87) and stroke (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.42-0.54) but not of MI (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92-1.15) or all-cause mortality (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.64-1.37). Sensitivity analyses revealed similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

A combined antiangina treatment of nicorandil and BBs may be more effective than treatment of BBs alone in reducing the long-term incidence of MACE in patients with CAD.

Antiperistaltic effect and safety of l-menthol oral solution on gastric mucosa for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in Chinese patients: Phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE

The topical antispasmodic agent l-menthol is commonly used for gastric peristalsis suppression during diagnostic upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of a single dose l-menthol solution in suppressing gastric peristalsis during upper GI endoscopy in Chinese patients.

METHODS

In this phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03263910), 220 patients scheduled to undergo upper GI endoscopy at five Chinese referral centers received a single dose of either 160 mg of l-menthol (n = 109) or placebo (n = 111). Both treatments were sprayed endoscopically on the gastric mucosa. An independent committee evaluated the degree of gastric peristalsis (peristaltic score: grade 1-5).

RESULTS

At baseline, the proportion of patients with grade 1 peristalsis (no peristalsis) did not differ between the groups. The proportion of patients with grade 1 peristalsis post-treatment was significantly higher in the l-menthol group (40.37%, 44/109) versus the placebo group (16.22%, 18/111; P < 0.001); the difference between the groups was 24.15% (95% confidence interval: 12.67%-35.63%; P < 0.001). In the l-menthol group, 61.47% of patients had grade 1 peristalsis after endoscopy versus 24.55% in the placebo group (P < 0.001). The ease of intragastric examination correlated significantly with the grade of peristalsis. The incidence of adverse events was comparable between the groups (P = 0.340).

CONCLUSIONS

During upper GI endoscopy, a single dose of l-menthol solution (160 mg) sprayed on the gastric mucosa significantly attenuated gastric peristalsis versus placebo, thereby improving the visual stability without any safety concerns.

The Role of Nicorandil in the Management of Chronic Coronary Syndromes in the Gulf Region

Chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) and stable angina are a growing clinical burden worldwide. This is of particular concern in the Gulf region given its high prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors, especially diabetes mellitus and smoking. Despite recommendations on the use of first- and second-line anti-anginal medication, management challenges remain. Current guidelines for pharmacologic treatment are not determined by the range of pathophysiological mechanisms of ischaemia and consequent angina, which may occur either in isolation or co-exist. In this article, we highlight the need to improve knowledge of the epidemiology of chronic coronary syndromes in the Middle East and Gulf region, and the need for studies of stratified pharmacologic approaches to improve symptomatic angina and quality of life in the large and growing number of patients with coronary artery disease from this region. We discuss the role of nicorandil, currently recommended as a second-line anti-anginal drug in CCS patients, and suggest that this may be a particularly useful add-on therapy for patients in the Gulf region.

Anti-anginal drugs-beliefs and evidence: systematic review covering 50 years of medical treatment

Chronic stable angina is the most prevalent symptom of ischaemic heart disease and its management is a priority. Current guidelines recommend pharmacological therapy with drugs classified as being first line (beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, short acting nitrates) or second line (long-acting nitrates, ivabradine, nicorandil, ranolazine, and trimetazidine). Second line drugs are indicated for patients who have contraindications to first line agents, do not tolerate them or remain symptomatic. Evidence that one drug is superior to another has been questioned. Between January and March 2018, we performed a systematic review of articles written in English over the past 50 years English-written articles in Medline and Embase following preferred reporting items and the Cochrane collaboration approach. We included double blind randomized studies comparing parallel groups on treatment of angina in patients with stable coronary artery disease, with a sample size of, at least, 100 patients (50 patients per group), with a minimum follow-up of 1 week and an outcome measured on exercise testing, duration of exercise being the preferred outcome. Thirteen studies fulfilled our criteria. Nine studies involved between 100 and 300 patients, (2818 in total) and a further four enrolled greater than 300 patients. Evidence of equivalence was demonstrated for the use of beta-blockers (atenolol), calcium antagonists (amlodipine, nifedipine), and channel inhibitor (ivabradine) in three of these studies. Taken all together, in none of the studies was there evidence that one drug was superior to another in the treatment of angina or to prolong total exercise duration. There is a paucity of data comparing the efficacy of anti-anginal agents. The little available evidence shows that no anti-anginal drug is superior to another and equivalence has been shown only for three classes of drugs. Guidelines draw conclusions not from evidence but from clinical beliefs.

Anti-anginal drugs: Systematic review and clinical implications

BACKGROUND

The cornerstone of the treatment of patients affected by stable angina is based on drugs administration classified as first (beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, short acting nitrates) or second line treatment (long-acting nitrates, ivabradine, nicorandil, ranolazine and trimetazidine). However, few data on comparison between different classes of drugs justify that one class of drugs is superior to another.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the literature following PRISMA guidelines.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

i) paper published in English; ii) diagnosis of stable coronary disease; iii) randomized clinical trial; iv) comparison of two anti-angina drugs; v) a sample size >100 patients; vi) a follow-up lasting at least 2 weeks; vii) paper published after 1999, when a meta-analysis of trials comparing beta-blockers, calcium antagonists, and nitrates for stable angina of Heidenreich et al. was published.

OUTCOME

to establish whether the categorization in first and second line antianginal treatment is scientifically supported.

RESULTS

Eleven trials fulfilled inclusion criteria. The results show that there is a paucity of data comparing the efficacy of antianginal agents. The little data available show that there are not compounds superior to others in terms of improvement in exercise test duration, frequency of anginal attacks, need for sub-lingual nitroglycerin.

CONCLUSION

The categorization of antianginal drug in first and second line is not confirmed.

Management standards for stable coronary artery disease in India

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is one of the important causes of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality globally, giving rise to more than 7 million deaths annually. An increasing burden of CAD in India is a major cause of concern with angina being the leading manifestation. Stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) is characterised by episodes of transient central chest pain (angina pectoris), often triggered by exercise, emotion or other forms of stress, generally triggered by a reversible mismatch between myocardial oxygen demand and supply resulting in myocardial ischemia or hypoxia. A stabilised, frequently asymptomatic phase following an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is also classified as SCAD. This definition of SCAD also encompasses vasospastic and microvascular angina under the common umbrella.

Nicorandil, Gastrointestinal Adverse Drug Reactions and Ulcerations: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Nicorandil is a popular anti-anginal drug in Europe and Japan. Apart from some common adverse drug reactions (ADR), its safety is satisfactory. Several reports have suggested a link between nicorandil, gastrointestinal (GI) ulceration and fistulas. The review aims to critically appraise, synthesize and present the available evidence of all known GI ADR per anatomical location.

METHODS

The study complied with the PRISMA statement. Literature and pharmacovigilance databases were used to provide rate and/or calculate parameters (median age, median dose, history of symptoms, length of therapy and healing time after withdrawal of the drug). Differences in distribution of quantitative variables were analyzed via Mann-Whitney test. Correlation between quantitative variables was assessed with a Spearman's correlation coefficient. A p value <0.05 was significant.

RESULTS

Oral ulcerations occur in 0.2% of the subjects, anal ulcerations are present between 0.07% and 0.37% of patients. Oral and distal GI involvements are the most common ADR (28-29% and 27-31% of all GI ADR, respectively). The hepatobiliary system, the pancreas and salivary glands are not affected by nicorandil exposure. The time to develop oral ulcerations is 74 weeks among people on <30 mg/day compared to only 7.5 weeks in individuals on higher regimens (p = 0.47). There is a significant correlation between dose and ulcer healing time (Spearman's 0.525, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Ulcerative disease is a very commonly reported GI ADR. A delayed ulcerative tendency supports the hypothesis of an ulcerogenic metabolite. Nicorandil seems to act as a cause of the ulcerations, but appears to also work in synergy with other promoting factors. Whether the action of the metabolites relies on a specific mechanism or a simple chemical ulceration is still to be established.

Use of nicorandil is Associated with Increased Risk for Gastrointestinal Ulceration and Perforation- A Nationally Representative Population-based study

Nicorandil is a vasodilatory drug used to relieve angina symptoms. Several healthcare products regulatory agencies have issued a warning associating the use of nicorandil and gastrointestinal (GI) ulceration. We aimed to evaluate the association between use of nicorandil and GI ulceration/perforation. A population-based cohort study involving 1 million randomly sampled participants in Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database was carried out. We estimated the association between use of nicorandil and GI ulceration/perforation by a Cox proportional hazards regression model. A nicorandil-specific propensity score (PS) was also created for adjustment of 75 covariates and matching. 25.8% (183/710) of nicorandil-treated patients developed new GI ulcer events and 1.6% (20/1254) developed new GI perforation events in the three-year follow-up period, as compared to 9.3% (61,281/659,081) and 0.3% (2,488/770,537) in the general population comparator cohort. Patients treated with nicorandil were at significantly increased risk of GI ulcer (PS adjusted hazard ratio 1.43, 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.65, 6848 excess cases per 100,000 person years) or GI perforation (aHR 1.60, 95% CI 1.02–2.51, 315 excess cases per 100,000 person years) compared with the nicorandil unexposed population. Our finding may warn the clinicians to weigh the overall risk-benefit balance of nicorandil treatment in patients.

Risk of skin ulcerations associated with oral nicorandil therapy: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

Although healthcare products regulatory agencies have issued warnings on risk of ulceration associated with the use of nicorandil, a population-based study has not been carried out.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the relationship between use of nicorandil and skin ulceration.

METHODS

We carried out a population-based study using a cohort of 1 million people assembled from Taiwan's national health insurance database. The association between nicorandil use and skin ulcers was estimated by a Cox proportional hazards regression model adjusting for a nicorandil-specific propensity score (PS) comprising of 86 potential predictors (c-statistic = 0·91).

RESULTS

The prospective cohort was longitudinally followed from January 2005 to December 2009, during which 1268 new users of nicorandil and 771 136 nonusers were identified. A higher frequency of skin ulcers (29 of 1268; 2·3%) was observed for users of nicorandil compared with nonusers (3231 of 771 136; 0·4%). Compared with nonusers, the crude hazard ratio (HR) associating nicorandil use with skin ulcers was 5·52 [95% confidence interval (CI) 3·82-7·95] and the PS-adjusted HR was 1·85 (95% CI 1·27-2·69). A risk period analysis showed that the risk of skin ulceration among users of nicorandil was greatest in the first year. Subgroup analysis found that the interaction term reached statistical significance (P < 0·05) for age and diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of nicorandil was found to be associated with an increased risk for skin ulceration, especially in the first year after incident exposure. We suggest that regulatory agencies re-evaluate the risk for skin ulceration associated with use of nicorandil.

All-cause mortality and cardiovascular events with nicorandil in patients with IHD: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature

BACKGROUND

Nicorandil is able to protect the cardiomyocytes from ischemic damage, but clear benefits of nicorandil in all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events were not consistently reported in patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD).

MATERIALS AND RESULTS

Cochrane, PubMed, EMBASE, CBM, CNKI and Wangfang databases were searched for randomized controlled trials. Data on all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events were collected. Nicorandil groups were pooled to perform a comparison with control groups and to get the pooled odds ratios (ORs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all-cause mortality, relative risks (RRs), and associated 95% CIs for cardiovascular events. STATA 11.0 software was used for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events statistics. We retrieved 17 randomized controlled studies enrolling a total of 7305 patients. The addition of nicorandil treatment significantly reduced cardiovascular events (13.83% versus 18.01%; RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.86). No differences in all-cause mortality (3.83% versus 4.70%; OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.02), and repeat revascularization rate (13.06% versus 13.54%; RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.29) were observed. There was a weak linear association between cardiovascular events and nicorandil in IHD with diabetes (P=0.099).

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that nicorandil as an adjunct therapy to IHD is associated with reduced cardiovascular events in patients with IHD.