Background: The cornerstone of the treatment of patients affected by stable angina is based on drugs administration classified as first (beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, short acting nitrates) or second line treatment (long-acting nitrates, ivabradine, nicorandil, ranolazine and trimetazidine). However, few data on comparison between different classes of drugs justify that one class of drugs is superior to another. Methods: We performed a systematic review of the literature following PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria: i) paper published in English; ii) diagnosis of stable coronary disease; iii) randomized clinical trial; iv) comparison of two anti-angina drugs; v) a sample size >100 patients; vi) a follow-up lasting at least 2 weeks; vii) paper published after 1999, when a meta-analysis of trials comparing beta-blockers, calcium antagonists, and nitrates for stable angina of Heidenreich et al. was published. Outcome: to establish whether the categorization in first and second line antianginal treatment is scientifically supported. Results: Eleven trials fulfilled inclusion criteria. The results show that there is a paucity of data comparing the efficacy of antianginal agents. The little data available show that there are not compounds superior to others in terms of improvement in exercise test duration, frequency of anginal attacks, need for sub-lingual nitroglycerin. Conclusion: The categorization of antianginal drug in first and second line is not confirmed.
Anti-anginal drugs: Systematic review and clinical implications
Pavasini, Rita
Primo
;Balla, CristinaPenultimo
;Ferrari, RobertoUltimo
2019
Abstract
Background: The cornerstone of the treatment of patients affected by stable angina is based on drugs administration classified as first (beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, short acting nitrates) or second line treatment (long-acting nitrates, ivabradine, nicorandil, ranolazine and trimetazidine). However, few data on comparison between different classes of drugs justify that one class of drugs is superior to another. Methods: We performed a systematic review of the literature following PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria: i) paper published in English; ii) diagnosis of stable coronary disease; iii) randomized clinical trial; iv) comparison of two anti-angina drugs; v) a sample size >100 patients; vi) a follow-up lasting at least 2 weeks; vii) paper published after 1999, when a meta-analysis of trials comparing beta-blockers, calcium antagonists, and nitrates for stable angina of Heidenreich et al. was published. Outcome: to establish whether the categorization in first and second line antianginal treatment is scientifically supported. Results: Eleven trials fulfilled inclusion criteria. The results show that there is a paucity of data comparing the efficacy of antianginal agents. The little data available show that there are not compounds superior to others in terms of improvement in exercise test duration, frequency of anginal attacks, need for sub-lingual nitroglycerin. Conclusion: The categorization of antianginal drug in first and second line is not confirmed.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
1-s2.0-S0167527318360947-main.pdf
solo gestori archivio
Descrizione: versione editoriale
Tipologia:
Full text (versione editoriale)
Licenza:
NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione
1.11 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
1.11 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
j.ijcard.2018.12.008_AAM.pdf
accesso aperto
Descrizione: post print
Tipologia:
Post-print
Licenza:
Creative commons
Dimensione
2.18 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
2.18 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in SFERA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.