Search

Tirofiban is a glycoproteine (GP) IIb/IIIa receptor antagonist, which inhibits platelet-platelet aggregation and is a potential adjunctive antithrombotic treatment in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) or high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). It is administered intravenously as a bolus followed by continuous infusion. However, the dosage recommendations in the United States (US) and European Union (EU) differ considerably. Furthermore, in routine clinical practice, deviations from the recommendations may occur. The objective of the present study was to investigate the impact of different alterations on tirofiban plasma concentrations in US and EU administration regimens and to give suggestions for delay management in clinical practice. We therefore mathematically simulated the effects of different bolus-infusion delays and infusion interruptions in different scenarios according to the renal function. Here, we provide a systematic assessment of concentration patterns of tirofiban in the US versus EU dosage regimens. We show that differences between the two regimens have important effects on plasma drug levels. Furthermore, we demonstrate that deviations from the proper administration mode affect the concentration of tirofiban. Additionally, we calculated the optimal dosage of a second bolus to rapidly restore the initial concentration without causing overdosage. In conclusion, differences in tirofiban dosing regimens between the U.S and EU and potential infusion interruptions have important effects on drug levels that may impact on degrees of platelet inhibition and thus antithrombotic effects. Thus, the findings of our modelling studies may help to explain differences in clinical outcomes observed in previous clinical trials on tirofiban.

Background Bempedoic acid (BA) is a novel oral low-density lipoprotein cholestrol (LDL-C) lowering drug. Its efficacy and safety for clinical outcomes in high cardiovascular risk patients remains unknown. Objectives and methods A systematic review was performed and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of BA vs. placebo in high cardiovascular risk patients reporting clinical efficacy and safety outcomes were included in a meta-analysis. Cumulative odds ratios (OR) and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported as summary statistics. Results Six RCTs with a total of 3,956 patients and follow-ups of four to 52 weeks were identified. There was no difference in MACE (OR 0.84; CI 0.61, 1.15), all-cause mortality (OR 2.37; CI 0.80, 6.99) and cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.66; CI 0.45, 6.04) for BA vs. placebo. BA showed beneficial trends for nonfatal myocardial infarction (OR 0.57; CI 0.32, 1.00) and was associated with a lower risk of new-onset or worsening of diabetes mellitus (OR 0.68; CI 0.49, 0.94) and non-coronary revascularization (OR 0.41; CI 0.18, 0.95), but higher risk of gout (OR 3.29; CI 1.28, 8.46) and a trend for worsening of renal function (OR 4.24; CI 0.98, 18.39) and muscular disorders (OR 2.60; CI 1.15, 5.91). Conclusion Bempedoic acid in high cardiovascular risk patients showed no significant effects on major cardiovascular outcomes in short-term follow-up. Unfavourable effects on muscular disorders, renal function and the incidence of gout sound a note of caution. Hence, further studies with longer-term follow-up are needed to clarify the risk/benefit ratio of this novel therapy. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.