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, Cristina
Penultimo
;
Ferrari, Roberto
Ultimo
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.
2019
Pavasini, Rita; Camici, Paolo G.; Crea, Filippo; Danchin, Nicolas; Fox, Kim; Manolis, Athanasios J.; Marzilli, Mario; Rosano, Giuseppe M. C.; Lopez-Se...espandi
File in questo prodotto:
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.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11392/2401365
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 6
  • Scopus 26
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 22
social impact