Search

In patients with recent acute coronary syndromes (ACS), current guidelines recommend a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level <55 mg/100 ml. Despite the widespread use of different potent lipid-lowering therapies (LLT), this goal is not always achieved, often owing to less medication adherence. In this prespecified subanalysis of the JET-Low Density Lipoprotein (JET-LDL) registry, we sought to evaluate the relation between LDL-C targets achievement and LLT adherence in a cohort of patients hospitalized for ACS. The patients' self-reported medication adherence was assessed using the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS) at 3-month follow-up. Depending on the score obtained, the population was divided into 2 groups: high adherence (HA, MMAS ≥6) versus low adherence (LA, MMAS <6). The occurrence of the primary end point (LDL-C reduction >50% from baseline or level <55 mg/100 ml at 1 month) was compared in the 2 groups. A total of 963 patients were included in the present analysis; in 277 cases (28.7%), an MMAS score <6 was reported (LA group), whereas in the remaining 686 (71.3%), the score obtained was ≥6 (HA group). No difference between the 2 groups was observed regarding LDL-C levels at admission and LLT prescribed at discharge. At 1 month, the primary end point occurred in 62.5% of cases, with a statistically significant difference between the 2 groups (LA 60% vs HA 65%, p = 0.034). At multivariate logistic regression analysis, LA was identified as an independent predictor of not achieving the primary end point (odds ratio 0.48, 0.39 to 0.85, p = 0.006). In conclusion, in a real-world cohort of patients with ACS, less medication adherence to LLT was a common event (28.7%), negatively affecting LDL-C goal achievement., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no competing interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Induction with daratumumab-based regimens followed by autologous stem cell transplantation is the current standard for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients eligible for intensive chemotherapy. However, concerns emerged regarding potential negative effects following daratumumab-based treatment on CD34+ mobilization. We here compared CD34+ mobilization and clonogenic potential between daratumumab and non-daratumumab based therapy without upfront plerixafor administration among patients affected by NDMM., Materials and Methods: Clinical, mobilization and clonogenic data from 41 consecutively enrolled NDMM patients were analyzed. Patients underwent collection of autologous CD34+ by apheresis at the ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy, from January 2021 to March 2023. Clonogenicity analysis was performed on BFU-E and CFU-GM., Results: Seventy-five percent of daratumumab-treated patients underwent >1 apheresis, compared to 24% of non-daratumumab patients (p=0.0017). Daratumumab-treated patients had significantly lower CD34+ count (mean 38 vs 79/μL, respectively; p=0.0011), with a median CD34+ harvest of 3.98×10 6 /kg (range 1.68-9.18) vs 6.87×10 6 /kg (range 1.63-16.85) in non-daratumumab-treated (p=0.0006). In multivariate analysis the likelihood of undergoing >1 apheresis was significantly higher in older patients (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1-1.4, Z=2.10, p=0.03) and daratumumab-treated patients (OR 15, 95% CI 2.8-129, p=0.004). Moreover, daratumumab-based induction therapy demonstrated an independent negative association with BFU-E colony formation (p=0.0148), even when accounting for patient age and CD34+ levels., Discussion: Our findings underscore the impact of daratumumab-based treatment on CD34+ mobilization in a real-life, upfront plerixafor-free population of NDMM patients. Higher probability of requiring multiple apheresis occurred among daratumumab-treated patients. Interestingly, the observation that daratumumab might negatively impact BFU-E colony formation, independent of CD34+ cell count, offers novel biological perspectives. Appropriate strategies should be adopted by the Apheresis teams to mitigate these potential negative effects.

Concomitant presence of atrial fibrillation and coronary artery disease requiring percutaneous coronary intervention is a frequent occurrence. The choice of optimal antithrombotic therapy, in this context, is still challenging. To offer the best protection both in terms of stroke and stent thrombosis, triple therapy with oral anticoagulation and dual antiplatelet therapy would be required. Several drug combinations have been tested in recent years, including direct oral anticoagulants, with the aim of balancing ischemic and bleeding risk. Both pharmacokinetic aspects of the molecules and patient's characteristics should be analyzed in choosing oral anticoagulation. Then, as suggested by guidelines, triple therapy should start with a seven-day duration and the aim to prolong to thirty days in high thrombotic risk patients. Dual therapy should follow to reach twelve months after coronary intervention. Even not fully discussed by the guidelines, in order to balance ischemic and bleeding risk it should also be considered: 1) integrated assessment of coronary artery disease and procedural complexity of coronary intervention; 2) appropriateness to maintain the anticoagulant drug dosage indicated in technical data sheet; the lack of data on the suspension of antiplatelet drugs one year after percutaneous intervention; 3) the possibility of combination therapy with ticagrelor; and 4) the need to treat the occurrence of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation during acute coronary syndrome. With data provided clinician should pursue a therapy as personalized as possible, both in terms of drug choice and treatment duration, in order to balance ischemic and bleeding risk.