Activity

Antiplatelet agents are the standard of practice in the management of atherosclerosis and acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Thiostrepton nmr In contrast to the available antiplatelet agents, vorapaxar represents a novel mechanism of action. It is an antagonist of the platelet protease-activated receptor-1 (PAR-1) and inhibits thrombin-induced and thrombin receptor agonist peptide (TRAP)- induced platelet aggregation. The TRA2○P-TIMI 50 trial led to the approval of vorapaxar by the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency for the reduction of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with a history of myocardial infarction (MI) or peripheral arterial disease. TRA2○P-TIMI 50 trial showed that the use of vorapaxar (2.5 mg once/daily) in addition to standard dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor, was effective in the secondary prevention of recurrent thrombotic events among patients with previous atherothrombosis, particularly in patients with prior MI; at the expense of an increase in major bleeding. Another recently published VORA-PRATIC (Vorapaxar in Patients with Prior Myocardial Infarction Treated with prasugrel and ticagrelor) study showed that among post-MI patients treated with potent P2Y12 inhibitors (prasugrel or ticagrelor), vorapaxar reduced platelet-driven global thrombogenicity, an effect that persisted, albeit attenuated, in the absence of aspirin. The current review summarizes an up to date literature on pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and clinical efficacy of vorapaxar and proposes future directions of research.The ISCHEMIA was eagerly awaited study in the field of ischemic heart disease. Following the presentation and publication of ISCHEMIA, multiple opinions and viewpoints get complicated. The ongoing debates have been including the relevance of coronary revascularization, non-invasive diagnostic methods, and invasive ischemic testing in patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD). Prior to ISCHEMIA, observational studies indicated the potential of coronary revascularization for improving clinical outcomes, while the randomized COURAGE trial did not support the plausible concept. Although the FAME 2 trial implied the superiority of percutaneous coronary intervention over medical therapy alone, the clinical relevance of coronary revascularization to improve outcomes and quality of life has been questioned. As a consequence, the ISCHEMIA trial did not demonstrate clear benefits in reducing clinical events but showed antianginal effects of revascularization. This landmark trial also suggested the difficulties of non-invasive ischemia testing rather than computed tomography angiography. Despite the complex results, the ISCHEMIA trial may simplify the clinical indications of coronary revascularization in patients with SIHD. Future publications from the ISCHEMIA trial and debates on the results will sharpen our thinking and understanding.Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) was shown to improve cardiac function, reduce heart failure hospitalizations, improve quality of life and prolong survival in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and intraventricular conduction disturbances, mainly left bundle branch block, on optimal medical therapy with ACE-inhibitors, β-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists up-titrated to maximum tolerated evidence-based doses. CRT can be achieved by means of pacemaker systems (CRT-P) or devices with defibrillation capabilities (CRT-D). CRT-Ds offer an undoubted advantage in the prevention of arrhythmic death, but such an advantage may be of lesser degree in non-ischemic heart failure aetiologies. Moreover, the higher CRT-D hardware complexity compared to CRT-P may predispose to device/lead malfunctions and the higher current drainage may cause a shorter battery duration with consequent premature replacements and the well-known incremental complications. In a period of financial constraints, also device costs should be carefully evaluated, with recent reports suggesting that CRT-Ps may be favoured over CRT-Ds in patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and no prior history of cardiac arrhythmias from a cost-effectiveness point of view. The choice between a CRT-P or a CRT-D device should be patient-tailored whenever straightforward defibrillator indications are not present. The Goldenberg score may facilitate this decision-making process in ambiguous settings. Age, comorbidities, kidney disease, atrial fibrillation, advanced functional class, inappropriate therapy risk, implantable device infections and malfunctions are factors potentially reducing the expected benefit from defibrillating capabilities. Future prospective, randomized controlled trials are warranted to directly compare the efficacy and safety of CRT-Ps and CRT-Ds.

To examine the extent to which colloquial phrases used to describe opioid-exposed mother-infant dyads affects attitudes toward mothers with opioid use disorder (OUD) to assess the role stigmatizing language may have on the care of mothers with OUD.

We employed a randomized, cross-sectional, case vignette of an opioid-exposed dyad, varying on 2 factors (1) language to describe newborn (“substance-exposed newborn” vs “addicted baby”) and (2) type of maternal opioid use (injection heroin vs nonmedical use of prescription opioids). Participants were recruited using an online survey platform. Substance-related stigma, punitive-blaming, and supportive scales were constructed to assess attitudes. Two-way analyses of variance were conducted to determine mean scale differences by vignette. Posthoc analyses assessed individual item-level differences.

Among 1227 respondents, we found a small statistical difference between language and opioid type factors for the supportive scale only (F = 4.31, η2 = .004, P = 0.03uld contribute to ongoing stigma and avoidance of care among pregnant women with OUD.

Evaluate the availability of buprenorphine/naloxone for inpatients with opioid use disorder in a state’s acute care hospitals.

An audit study of all acute care hospitals in New Mexico was performed. Hospitals were surveyed on the availability of buprenorphine/naloxone on their inpatient formularies and their ability to obtain buprenorphine/naloxone within 1 day should a patient need it.

Of the surveyed hospitals, 45.5% did not have buprenorphine/naloxone on their inpatient formularies. Of the 26 counties in New Mexico with acute care hospitals, 10 did not have buprenorphine/naloxone available for inpatients. Three of these counties have drug overdose death rates equal to or higher than the state average.

In 1 predominately rural state with an opioid overdose death rate higher than the national average, approximately half of acute care hospitals had buprenorphine/naloxone available to patients on their inpatient formulary. Efforts to increase buprenorphine/naloxone availability in hospitals are needed, particularly in rural areas where there may not be other locations to access treatment for opioid use disorder.