Ranolazine versus placebo in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and persistent chest pain or dyspnea despite optimal medical and revascularization therapy: randomized, double-blind crossover pilot study

Allopurinol versus Trimetazidine for the Treatment of Angina: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Recently, it was demonstrated that allopurinol, a xanthine oxidase inhibitor, has cardiovascular and anti-ischaemic properties and may be a metabolic antianginal agent option.Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the antianginal effect of allopurinol as a third drug for patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS

This was a randomized clinical trial between 2018 and 2020 including patients with CAD who maintained angina despite initial optimization with beta-blockers and calcium channel blockers. The individuals were randomized 1:1 to 300 mg of allopurinol twice daily or 35 mg of trimetazidine twice daily. The main outcome was the difference in the angina frequency domain of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ-AF). A probability (p) value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A hundred and eight patients were included in the randomization phase, with 54 (50%) in the allopurinol group and 54 (50%) in the trimetazidine group. Six (5.6%) individuals, 3 from each group, were lost to follow-up for the primary outcome. In the allopurinol and trimetazidine groups, the median SAQ-AF scores were 50 (30.0 to 70.0) and 50 (21.3 to 78.3), respectively. In both groups, the SAQ-AF score improved, but the median of the difference compared to baseline was lower in the allopurinol group (10 [0 to 30] versus 20 [10 to 40]; p < 0.001), as was the mean of the difference in the total SAQ score (12.8 ± 17.8 versus 21.2 ± 15.9; p = 0.014).

CONCLUSION

Both allopurinol and trimetazidine improved the control of angina symptoms; however, trimetazidine presented a greater gain compared to baseline. Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials - Registration Number RBR-5kh98y.

Effects of ranolazine on various outcomes in patients with stable angina: an updated meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We determined the effect of ranolazine vs. placebo in angina patients on 1) selective measures of the ischemic burden, 2) cardiovascular outcomes, including atrial fibrillation incidence, 3) the in-treatment glycohemoglobin levels and the permanent discontinuations because of side effects, and 4) the achieved between-arms blood pressure and heart rate difference.

METHODS

PubMed and Cochrane Collaboration Library databases were searched for eligible trials until end of September 2020. Trial quality was assessed by the Rob2 tool. Risk ratios or achieved mean differences during follow-up and 95% confidence interval (CI) of categorical or continuous outcomes, respectively, were calculated (random-effects model). The relationship between discontinuation rates and ranolazine's mean dose was investigated by meta-regression analysis.

RESULTS

We selected 18 trials (n = 12,995 patients in patients with macro or microvascular coronary heart disease. Achieved blood pressure and heart rate at rest were not different between randomized arms. Ranolazine administration compared to placebo was associated with an increase of 1) total exercise duration by 30 seconds (95% CI, 18-42), 2) time to 1 mm ST-segment depression by 44 seconds (95% CI, 30-54), and 3) time to angina onset by 40 seconds (95% CI, 30-54). On average, the incidence of atrial fibrillation was reduced by 25% following ranolazine treatment compared to placebo, while glycohemoglobin showed a mean decrease of 0.4% (95% CI, 0.3-0.5%).

DISCUSSION

Ranolazine remains an effective anti-ischemic drug, increases the angina-free exercise duration, delays the onset of ST-segment depression. The beneficial effects of ranolazine are extended to atrial fibrillation reduction rates and better glycemic control.

Ranolazine for stable angina pectoris

BACKGROUND

Stable angina pectoris is a chronic medical condition with significant impact on mortality and quality of life; it can be macrovascular or microvascular in origin. Ranolazine is a second-line anti-anginal drug approved for use in people with stable angina. However, the effects of ranolazine for people with angina are considered to be modest, with uncertain clinical relevance.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of ranolazine on cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, quality of life, acute myocardial infarction incidence, angina episodes frequency and adverse events incidence in stable angina patients, used either as monotherapy or as add-on therapy, and compared to placebo or any other anti-anginal agent.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science in February 2016, as well as regional databases and trials registers. We also screened reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which directly compared the effects of ranolazine versus placebo or other anti-anginals in people with stable angina pectoris were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Estimates of treatment effects were calculated using risk ratios (RR), mean differences (MD) and standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effect model. Where we found statistically significant heterogeneity (Chi² P < 0.10), we used a random-effects model for pooling estimates. Meta-analysis was not performed where we found considerable heterogeneity (I² ≥ 75%). We used GRADE criteria to assess evidence quality and the GRADE profiler (GRADEpro GDT) to import data from Review Manager 5.3 to create 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 RCTs (9975 participants, mean age 63.3 years). We found very limited (or no) data to inform most planned comparisons. Summary data were used to inform comparison of ranolazine versus placebo. Overall, risk of bias was assessed as unclear.For add-on ranolazine compared to placebo, no data were available to estimate cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality. We found uncertainty about the effect of ranolazine on: all-cause mortality (1000 mg twice daily, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.71; 3 studies, 2053 participants; low quality evidence); quality of life (any dose, SMD 0.25, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.52; 4 studies, 1563 participants; I² = 73%; moderate quality evidence); and incidence of non-fatal acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (1000mg twice daily, RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.07; 2 studies, 1509 participants; low quality evidence). Add-on ranolazine 1000 mg twice daily reduced the fervour of angina episodes (MD -0.66, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.35; 3 studies, 2004 participants; I² = 39%; moderate quality evidence) but increased the risk of non-serious adverse events (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.40; 3 studies, 2053 participants; moderate quality evidence).For ranolazine as monotherapy compared to placebo, we found uncertain effect on cardiovascular mortality (1000 mg twice daily, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.88; 1 study, 2604 participants; low quality evidence). No data were available to estimate non-cardiovascular mortality. We also found an uncertain effect on all-cause mortality for ranolazine (1000 mg twice daily, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.25; 3 studies, 6249 participants; low quality evidence), quality of life (1000 mg twice daily, MD 0.28, 95% CI -1.57 to 2.13; 3 studies, 2254 participants; moderate quality evidence), non-fatal AMI incidence (any dose, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.12; 3 studies, 2983 participants; I² = 50%; low quality evidence), and frequency of angina episodes (any dose, MD 0.08, 95% CI -0.85 to 1.01; 2 studies, 402 participants; low quality evidence). We found an increased risk for non-serious adverse events associated with ranolazine (any dose, RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.00; 3 studies, 947 participants; very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very low quality evidence showing that people with stable angina who received ranolazine as monotherapy had increased risk of presenting non-serious adverse events compared to those given placebo. We found low quality evidence indicating that people with stable angina who received ranolazine showed uncertain effect on the risk of cardiovascular death (for ranolazine given as monotherapy), all-cause death and non-fatal AMI, and the frequency of angina episodes (for ranolazine given as monotherapy) compared to those given placebo. Moderate quality evidence indicated that people with stable angina who received ranolazine showed uncertain effect on quality of life compared with people who received placebo. Moderate quality evidence also indicated that people with stable angina who received ranolazine as add-on therapy had fewer angina episodes but increased risk of presenting non-serious adverse events compared to those given placebo.

The use of ranolazine in non-anginal cardiovascular disorders: A review of current data and ongoing randomized clinical trials

Ranolazine has characteristic properties of a selective inhibitor of the inward sodium current. It is primarily indicated as an anti-anginal agent in patients with coronary artery disease and chronic stable angina. Recently, ranolazine has been noted to possibly impart beneficial effects in various other cardiac conditions, including new-onset, paroxysmal, and chronic atrial fibrillation, post-operative atrial fibrillation, ventricular arrhythmias, post-revascularization coronary artery disease, chemotherapeutic cardiotoxicity, and diastolic and microvascular dysfunction. Herein, we present a review of the current clinical evidence describing the adjunctive or synergistic effects of ranolazine in non-angina related cardiovascular disorders, and include a discussion of the ongoing randomized trials investigating the therapeutic potential of ranolazine in a variety of cardiovascular diseases.