Long-Term and Sustained Therapeutic Results of a Specific Promonocyte Cell Formulation in Refractory Angina: ReACT(®) (Refractory Angina Cell Therapy) Clinical Update and Cost-Effective Analysis

Nonpharmacological interventions for 'no-option' refractory angina patients

Refractory angina pectoris (RAP) defined as chronic anginal chest pain because of coronary artery disease (CAD) is a major problem. The increase in the number of patients with RAP in recent years is because of the increasing aging population and improved survival rates among patients with CAD. Management of patients with RAP is often extremely challenging. In this review, we present several interventional approaches for RAP, including device therapies, lifestyle intervention, and cell therapies. Some of these treatments are currently used in the management of RAP, whereas other treatments are under investigation.

CD34+ cell therapy significantly reduces adverse cardiac events, health care expenditures, and mortality in patients with refractory angina

Patients with refractory angina who are suboptimal candidates for further revascularization have improved exercise time, decreased angina frequency, and reduced major adverse cardiac events with intramyocardial delivery of CD34⁺ cells. However, the effect of CD34⁺ cell therapy on health care expenditures before and after treatment is unknown. We determined the effect of CD34⁺ cell therapy on cardiac‐related hospital visits and costs during the 12 months following stem cell injection compared with the 12 months prior to injection. Cardiac‐related hospital admissions and procedures were retrospectively tabulated for patients enrolled at one site in one of three double‐blinded, placebo‐controlled CD34⁺ trials in the 12 months before and after intramyocardial injections of CD34⁺ cells vs placebo. Fifty‐six patients were randomized to CD34⁺ cell therapy (n = 37) vs placebo (n = 19). Patients randomized to cell therapy experienced 1.57 ± 1.39 cardiac‐related hospital visits 12 months before injection, compared with 0.78 ± 1.90 hospital visits 12 months after injection, which was associated with a 62% cost reduction translating to an average savings of $5500 per cell therapy patient. Patients in the placebo group also demonstrated a reduction in cardiac‐related hospital events and costs, although to a lesser degree than the CD34⁺ group. Through 1 January 2019, 24% of CD34⁺ subjects died at an average of 6.5 ± 2.4 years after enrollment, whereas 47% of placebo patients died at an average of 3.7 ± 1.9 years after enrollment. In conclusion, CD34⁺ cell therapy for subjects with refractory angina is associated with improved mortality and a reduction in hospital visits and expenditures for cardiac procedures in the year following treatment.

New Advances in the Management of Refractory Angina Pectoris

Refractory angina is a significant clinical problem and its successful management is often extremely challenging. Defined as chronic angina-type chest pain in the presence of myocardial ischaemia that persists despite optimal medical, interventional and surgical treatment, current therapies are limited and new approaches to treatment are needed. With an ageing population and increased survival from coronary artery disease, clinicians will increasingly encounter this complex condition in routine clinical practice. Novel therapies to target myocardial ischaemia in patients with refractory angina are at the forefront of research and in this review we discuss those in clinical translation and assess the evidence behind their efficacy.

Cell Therapy for Refractory Angina: A Reappraisal

Cardiac cell-based therapy has emerged as a novel therapeutic option for patients dealing with untreatable refractory angina (RA). However, after more than a decade of controlled studies, no definitive consensus has been reached regarding clinical efficacy. Although positive results in terms of surrogate endpoints have been suggested by early and phase II clinical studies as well as by meta-analyses, the more recent reports lacked the provision of definitive response in terms of hard clinical endpoints. Regrettably, pivotal trials designed to conclusively determine the efficacy of cell-based therapeutics in such a challenging clinical condition are therefore still missing. Considering this, a comprehensive reappraisal of cardiac cell-based therapy role in RA seems warranted and timely, since a number of crucial cell- and patient-related aspects need to be systematically analysed. As an example, the large variability in efficacy endpoint selection appears to be a limiting factor for the advancement of cardiac cell-based therapy in the field. This review will provide an overview of the key elements that may have influenced the results of cell-based trials in the context of RA, focusing in particular on the understanding at which the extent of angina-related endpoints may predict cell-based therapeutic efficacy.

A Test in Context: Lipoprotein(a): Diagnosis, Prognosis, Controversies, and Emerging Therapies

Evidence that elevated lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) levels contribute to cardiovascular disease (CVD) and calcific aortic valve stenosis (CAVS) is substantial. Development of isoform-independent assays, in concert with genetic, epidemiological, translational, and pathophysiological insights, have established Lp(a) as an independent, genetic, and likely causal risk factor for CVD and CAVS. These observations are consistent across a broad spectrum of patients, risk factors, and concomitant therapies, including patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <70 mg/dl. Statins tend to increase Lp(a) levels, possibly contributing to the "residual risk" noted in outcomes trials and at the bedside. Recently approved proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin-type 9 inhibitors and mipomersen lower Lp(a) 20% to 30%, and emerging RNA-targeted therapies lower Lp(a) >80%. These approaches will allow testing of the "Lp(a) hypothesis" in clinical trials. This review summarizes the current landscape of Lp(a), discusses controversies, and reviews emerging therapies to reduce plasma Lp(a) levels to decrease risk of CVD and CAVS.