Utility of ranolazine in chronic stable angina patients

Ranolazine: safe and effective in a patient with hypertensive cardiomyopathy and multiple episodes of electrical storm

Among implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) recipients, there are patients with recurrent episodes of electrical storm (ES), retractable to the optimal antiarrhythmic drug therapy or invasive ablation procedures. A relatively novel anti-ischemic drug with also antiarrhythmic properties, ranolazine, may effectively suppress ventricular arrhythmias in such patients for a long period of time.

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.

Comparison of ranolazine and trimetazidine on glycemic status in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease - a randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Cardiovascular diseases have become the leading cause of death around the globe and diabetes mellitus (DM) is considered to be a coronary artery disease (CAD) risk equivalent. Ranolazine, an anti anginal drug has been found to reduce Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in diabetes patients with chronic angina. However the effect of another antianginal drug trimetazidine, on glycemic status is not clear.

AIM

To compare the effect of ranolazine and trimetazidine on glycemic status in diabetic patients with CAD.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

Patients diagnosed with CAD and diabetes mellitus attending Cardiology Out Patient Department (OPD), Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, India were recruited for this randomized open label parallel arm trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study conducted from January-2012 to April-2013 had 47 eligible patients diagnosed with CAD and diabetes mellitus. They were randomized to receive either ranolazine 500 mg BD or trimetazidine 35 mg BD for 12 weeks. HbA1c levels, fasting blood glucose (FBG), lipid profile, QT and QTc intervals were measured at baseline and after 12 weeks.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Unpaired t-test was used to compare the baseline characteristics of between the groups while comparison within the groups were done using Paired t-test. Wilcoxon and Mann Whitney U-tests were used for non parametric data. Graph pad instat version-3 was used for statistical analysis. Values were expressed as mean ± SD. A p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

The study could not find any change in HbA1c levels in both ranolazine and trimetazidine groups. The adverse effects reported from patients on ranolazine include angina, constipation, postural hypotension, headache, dizziness, nausea and weakness while patients on trimetazidine complained of constipation, weakness, palpitations, angina, dizziness, nausea, dyspepsia, headache, gastric discomfort, joint pain, etc.

CONCLUSION

In patients with chronic angina and diabetes mellitus Ranolazine 500mg BD and Trimetazidine 35mg BD did not show any effect on HbA1c and fasting blood glucose lebel.

Transmyocardial revascularization devices: technology update

Transmyocardial laser revascularization (TMR) emerged as treatment modality for patients with diffuse coronary artery disease not amendable to percutaneous or surgical revascularization. The procedure entails the creation of laser channels within ischemic myocardium in an effort to better perfuse these areas. Currently, two laser devices are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for TMR – holmium:yttrium–aluminum–garnet and CO₂. The two devices differ in regard to energy outputs, wavelengths, ability to synchronize with the heart cycle, and laser–tissue interactions. These differences have led to studies showing different efficacies between the two laser devices. Over 50,000 procedures have been performed worldwide using TMR. Improvements in angina stages, quality of life, and perfusion of the myocardium have been demonstrated with TMR. Although several mechanisms for these improvements have been suggested, evidence points to new blood vessel formation, or angiogenesis, within the treated myocardium, as the major contributory factor. TMR has been used as sole therapy and in combination with coronary artery bypass grafting. Clinical studies have demonstrated that TMR is both safe and effective in angina relief long term. The objective of this review is to present the two approved laser devices and evidence for the safety and efficacy of TMR, along with future directions with this technology.

Ranolazine's Role in the Treatment of Chronic Stable Angina

Objective:

To evaluate the role of ranolazine as an effective and safe first-line treatment option for the management of chronic stable angina (CSA).

Data Sources:

A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE (1966-August 2009), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-August 2009), and Cochrane database (publications archived until August 2009) using the terms chronic stable angina and ranolazine. In addition, reference citations from publications identified were reviewed.

Study Selection and Data Extraction:

English-language, randomized, controlled trials evaluating ranolazine extended release (ER) for the treatment of CSA in humans were selected for review. Four randomized controlled trials were identified. Findings pertaining to efficacy and safety were extracted.

Data Synthesis:

Three randomized, placebo-controlled CSA studies (N = 191, N = 823, N = 565) and 1 non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (ACS) study (N = 6560) were identified that evaluated ranolazine ER. The 3 CSA studies showed that ranolazine ER treatment resulted in statistically significant improvements in exercise tolerance, time to angina onset, and time to 1-mm ST-segment depression. Two of the 3 CSA studies showed statistically significant reductions in angina episodes per week and nitroglycerin use per week compared to placebo. No significant reduction in cardiovascular events was seen in the non-ST-segment elevation ACS study following 1 year of treatment with ranolazine ER. Evidence has demonstrated that monotherapy with ranolazine ER is effective in increasing exercise tolerance in patients with CSA. Ranolazine ER therapy added to traditional antianginal therapy has shown efficacy in increasing exercise tolerance and minimally decreasing angina frequency in clinical trials.

Conclusions:

Ranolazine ER should be used judiciously in the management of CSA and should not be used as a first-line agent routinely unless traditional therapy is contraindicated.