Craig D. Williams

Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in People With Diabetes A Position Statement of the American Diabetes Association, a Scientific Statement of the American Heart Association, and an Expert Consensus Document of the American College of Cardiology Foundation

The burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) among patients with diabetes is substantial. Individuals with diabetes are at 2- to 4-fold increased risk of cardiovascular events compared with age- and sex-matched individuals without diabetes. In diabetic patients over the age of 65 years, 68% of deaths are from coronary heart disease (CHD) and 16% are from stroke.1 A number of mechanisms for the increased cardiovascular risk with diabetes have been proposed, including increased tendency toward intracoronary thrombus formation,2 increased platelet reactivity,3 and worsened endothelial dysfunction.4 The increased risk for cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with diabetes has led to considerable interest in identifying effective means for cardiovascular risk reduction. Aspirin has been shown to be effective in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in high-risk patients with myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke (secondary prevention).5 The Food and Drug Administration has not approved aspirin for use in primary prevention, and its net benefit among patients with no previous cardiovascular events is more controversial, for both patients with and without a history of diabetes.5 The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recently updated its recommendation about aspirin use for primary prevention. The Task Force recommended encouraging aspirin use in men age 45–79 years and women age 55–79 years and not encouraging aspirin use in younger adults. They did not differentiate their recommendations based on the presence or absence of diabetes.6,7 In 2007, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the American Heart Association (AHA) jointly recommended that aspirin therapy (75–162 mg/d) be used as a primary prevention strategy in those with diabetes at increased cardiovascular risk, including those who are over 40 years of age or who have additional risk factors (family history of CVD, hypertension, smoking, dyslipidemia, or albuminuria).8 These recommendations were derived from several older …

Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in People With Diabetes: A position statement of the American Diabetes Association, a scientific statement of the American Heart Association, and an expert consensus document of the American College of Cardiology Foundation

The burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) among patients with diabetes is substantial. Individuals with diabetes are at two- to fourfold increased risk of cardiovascular events compared with age- and sex-matched individuals without diabetes. In diabetic patients over the age of 65 years, 68% of deaths are from coronary heart disease (CHD) and 16% are from stroke (1). A number of mechanisms for the increased cardiovascular risk with diabetes have been proposed, including increased tendency toward intracoronary thrombus formation (2), increased platelet reactivity (3), and worsened endothelial dysfunction (4). The increased risk for cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with diabetes has led to considerable interest in identifying effective means for cardiovascular risk reduction. Aspirin has been shown to be effective in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in high-risk patients with myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke (secondary prevention) (5). The Food and Drug Administration has not approved aspirin for use in primary prevention, and its net benefit among patients with no previous cardiovascular events is more controversial, for both patients with and without a history of diabetes (5). The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recently updated its recommendation about aspirin use for primary prevention. The Task Force recommended encouraging aspirin use in men age 45–79 years and women age 55–79 years and not encouraging aspirin use in younger adults. They did not differentiate their recommendations based on the presence or absence of diabetes (6,7). In 2007, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the American Heart Association (AHA) jointly recommended that aspirin therapy (75–162 mg/day) be used as a primary prevention strategy in those with diabetes at increased cardiovascular risk, including those who are over 40 years of age or who have additional risk factors (family history of CVD, hypertension, smoking, dyslipidemia, or albuminuria) (8). These recommendations were …

Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in People With Diabetes

The burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) among patients with diabetes is substantial. Individuals with diabetes are at 2- to 4-fold increased risk of cardiovascular events compared with age- and sex-matched individuals without diabetes. In diabetic patients over the age of 65 years, 68% of deaths are from coronary heart disease (CHD) and 16% are from stroke.1 A number of mechanisms for the increased cardiovascular risk with diabetes have been proposed, including increased tendency toward intracoronary thrombus formation,2 increased platelet reactivity,3 and worsened endothelial dysfunction.4 The increased risk for cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with diabetes has led to considerable interest in identifying effective means for cardiovascular risk reduction. Aspirin has been shown to be effective in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in high-risk patients with myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke (secondary prevention).5 The Food and Drug Administration has not approved aspirin for use in primary prevention, and its net benefit among patients with no previous cardiovascular events is more controversial, for both patients with and without a history of diabetes.5 The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recently updated its recommendation about aspirin use for primary prevention. The Task Force recommended encouraging aspirin use in men age 45–79 years and women age 55–79 years and not encouraging aspirin use in younger adults. They did not differentiate their recommendations based on the presence or absence of diabetes.6,7 In 2007, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the American Heart Association (AHA) jointly recommended that aspirin therapy (75–162 mg/d) be used as a primary prevention strategy in those with diabetes at increased cardiovascular risk, including those who are over 40 years of age or who have additional risk factors (family history of CVD, hypertension, smoking, dyslipidemia, or albuminuria).8 These recommendations were derived from several older …

Statins and Physical Activity in Older Men: The Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Study

IMPORTANCE Muscle pain, fatigue, and weakness are common adverse effects of statin medications and may decrease physical activity in older men. OBJECTIVE To determine whether statin use is associated with physical activity, longitudinally and cross-sectionally. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Men participating in the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Study (N = 5994), a multicenter prospective cohort study of community-living men 65 years and older, enrolled between March 2000 and April 2002. Follow-up was conducted through 2009. EXPOSURES Statin use as determined by an inventory of medications (taken within the last 30 days). In cross-sectional analyses (n = 4137), statin use categories were users and nonusers. In longitudinal analyses (n = 3039), categories were prevalent users (baseline use and throughout the study), new users (initiated use during the study), and nonusers (never used). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Self-reported physical activity at baseline and 2 follow-up visits using the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE). At the third visit, an accelerometer measured metabolic equivalents (METs [kilocalories per kilogram per hour]) and minutes of moderate activity (METs ≥3.0), vigorous activity (METs ≥6.0), and sedentary behavior (METs ≤1.5). RESULTS At baseline, 989 men (24%) were users and 3148 (76%) were nonusers. The adjusted difference in baseline PASE between users and nonusers was -5.8 points (95% CI, -10.9 to -0.7 points). A total of 3039 men met the inclusion criteria for longitudinal analysis: 727 (24%) prevalent users, 845 (28%) new users, and 1467 (48%) nonusers. PASE score declined by a mean (95% CI) of 2.5 (2.0 to 3.0) points per year for nonusers and 2.8 (2.1 to 3.5) points per year for prevalent users, a nonstatistical difference (0.3 [-0.5 to 1.0] points). For new users, annual PASE score declined at a faster rate than nonusers (difference of 0.9 [95% CI, 0.1 to 1.7] points). A total of 3071 men had adequate accelerometry data, 1542 (50%) were statin users. Statin users expended less METs (0.03 [95% CI, 0.02-0.04] METs less) and engaged in less moderate physical activity (5.4 [95% CI, 1.9-8.8] fewer minutes per day), less vigorous activity (0.6 [95% CI, 0.1-1.1] fewer minutes per day), and more sedentary behavior (7.6 [95% CI, 2.6-12.4] greater minutes per day). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Statin use was associated with modestly lower physical activity among community-living men, even after accounting for medical history and other potentially confounding factors. The clinical significance of these findings deserves further investigation.

Reporting Bias in Clinical Trials Investigating the Efficacy of Second-Generation Antidepressants in the Treatment of Anxiety Disorders: A Report of 2 Meta-analyses

IMPORTANCE Studies have shown that the scientific literature has overestimated the efficacy of antidepressants for depression, but other indications for these drugs have not been considered. OBJECTIVE To examine reporting biases in double-blind, placebo-controlled trials on the pharmacologic treatment of anxiety disorders and quantify the extent to which these biases inflate estimates of drug efficacy. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION We included reviews obtained from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for premarketing trials of 9 second-generation antidepressants in the treatment of anxiety disorders. A systematic search for matching publications (until December 19, 2012) was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Double data extraction was performed for the FDA reviews and the journal articles. The Hedges g value was calculated as the measure of effect size. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Reporting bias was examined and classified as study publication bias, outcome reporting bias, or spin (abstract conclusion not consistent with published results on primary end point). Separate meta-analyses were conducted for the 2 sources, and the effect of publication status on the effect estimates was examined using meta-regression. RESULTS The findings of 41 of the 57 trials (72%) were positive according to the FDA, but 43 of the 45 published article conclusions (96%) were positive (P < .001). Trials that the FDA determined as positive were 5 times more likely to be published in agreement with that determination compared with trials determined as not positive (risk ratio, 5.20; 95% CI, 1.87 to 14.45; P < .001). We found evidence for study publication bias (P < .001), outcome reporting bias (P = .02), and spin (P = .02). The pooled effect size based on the published literature (Hedges g, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.42; P < .001) was 15% higher than the effect size based on the FDA data (Hedges g, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.38; P < .001), but this difference was not statistically significant (β = 0.04; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.10; P = .18). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Various reporting biases were present for trials on the efficacy of FDA-approved second-generation antidepressants for anxiety disorders. Although these biases did not significantly inflate estimates of drug efficacy, reporting biases led to significant increases in the number of positive findings in the literature.

Aspirin therapy reduces the ability of platelets to promote colon and pancreatic cancer cell proliferation: implications for the oncoprotein c-MYC.

Aspirin, an anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic drug, has become the focus of intense research as a potential anticancer agent owing to its ability to reduce tumor proliferation in vitro and to prevent tumorigenesis in patients. Studies have found an anticancer effect of aspirin when used in low, antiplatelet doses. However, the mechanisms through which low-dose aspirin works are poorly understood. In this study, we aimed to determine the effect of aspirin on the cross talk between platelets and cancer cells. For our study, we used two colon cancer cell lines isolated from the same donor but characterized by different metastatic potential, SW480 (nonmetastatic) and SW620 (metastatic) cancer cells, and a pancreatic cancer cell line, PANC-1 (nonmetastatic). We found that SW480 and PANC-1 cancer cell proliferation was potentiated by human platelets in a manner dependent on the upregulation and activation of the oncoprotein c-MYC. The ability of platelets to upregulate c-MYC and cancer cell proliferation was reversed by an antiplatelet concentration of aspirin. In conclusion, we show for the first time that inhibition of platelets by aspirin can affect their ability to induce cancer cell proliferation through the modulation of the c-MYC oncoprotein.

Application of platelet function testing to the bedside

The ability to test platelet reactivity in clinical practice could help in making informed decisions on both initiation and titration of anti-platelet drug therapies. However, many barriers still remain to the effective implementation of such techniques. Many tests used in the research literature are not yet available for practical, clinical use. Platelet aggregometry, while informative and currently available for bedside use, needs additional research before routine clinical use can be recommended. This review will highlight and update contemporary issues of bedside platelet testing for the clinician and comment on future areas of clinical research.

Ethylene glycol intoxication: case report and pharmacokinetic perspectives.

A 42‐year‐old man was brought to the emergency department with ethylene glycol intoxication. He was hemodynamically stable and had normal renal function. His serum ethylene glycol concentration was 284 mg/dl approximately 1 hour after ethylene glycol consumption. The patient was treated with fomepizole and forced diuresis. Elimination of ethylene glycol in this patient followed first‐order pharmacokinetics. Elimination pharmacokinetics in this patient were compared with that in a patient who received fomepizole and hemodialysis. Fomepizole monotherapy can be given in patients without renal failure or metabolic acidosis even with serum ethylene glycol concentrations greater than 50 mg/dl. However, cost estimates based on this case suggest that if the patient is treated adequately with a single hemodialysis session and 24‐hour hospitalization, then fomepizole monotherapy may be more expensive than the combination regimen of fomepizole and hemodialysis.

What Combination Therapy with a Statin, If Any, Would You Recommend?

The latest recommended goals for blood lipid levels may require multiple lipid drugs. Lower doses in combination may render more efficacy and safety than highest doses of single agents. Except for isolated hypoalphalipoproteinemia (a low level of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol), therapies will start with a statin. All marketed statins are acceptable. The choice may be based on dose- efficacy and patient’s tolerability. High-potency statins (eg, atorvastatin, simvastatin, or rosuvastatin) are often chosen. Currently, generic statins, such as simvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, and fluvastatin, offer cost benefits. The choice of added agent depends on the “residual lipoprotein abnormalities” after statin therapy, efficacy, compliance issues, and cost. Approved “combined” preparations improve cost and compliance. To further lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, ezetimibe is a safe, efficacious choice, pending resolution of a controversial trial’s results. Colesevelam is moderately effective and the best tolerated bile acids sequestrant. In combined dyslipidemias, extended-release niacin is the best tolerated niacin preparation; other quality-controlled immediate-release preparations have similar safety and efficacy but produce more flushing of the skin. Niacin or fenofibrate is effective in normalizing high-density lipoprotein and triglyceride levels persisting after statin therapy. Agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the latest guidelines of the National Cholesterol Education Program, American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology provide choices and indications of drug combinations.

Clopidogrel variability: role of plasma protein binding alterations

AIM The large inter-individual variability in clopidogrel response is attributed to pharmacokinetics. Although, it has been used since the late 1990s the pharmacokinetic fate of clopidogrel and its metabolites are poorly explained. The variable response to clopidogrel is believed to be multi-factorial, caused both by genetic and non-genetic factors. In this study, we examined whether the inactive metabolite can alter the plasma protein binding of the active metabolite, thus explaining the large inter-individual variability associated with clopidogrel response. METHODS Female subjects (n = 28) with stable coronary disease who were not taking clopidogrel were recruited. Serial blood samples were collected following 300 mg oral dose of clopidogrel, plasma was isolated and quantified for total and free concentrations of active and inactive metabolites. Inhibition of platelet aggregation was measured using the phosphorylated vasodilator stimulated phosphoprotein (VASP) assay. RESULTS A significant correlation was observed between VASP and both free (r = 0.49, P < 0.05) and total (r = 0.49, P < 0.05) concentrations of the active metabolite. Surprisingly, we observed a significant correlation with both free (r = 0.42, P < 0.05) and total (r = 0.67, P < 0.001) concentrations of the inactive metabolite as well. Free fractions of the active metabolite rose with increasing protein binding of the inactive metabolite (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS The above in vivo data suggest that the inactive metabolite displaces the active metabolite from binding sites. Thus, the inactive metabolite might increase the free concentration of the active metabolite leading to enhanced inhibition of platelet aggregation. The plasma protein binding mechanism would offer an additional therapeutic strategy to optimize clopidogrel pharmacotherapy.