Search

As coronary artery disease (CAD) remains a leading cause of death in the world, the development of anti-coagulants to prevent CAD progressing to myocardial infarction and death is a high priority. A number of direct Factor Xa (FXa) inhibitors are being developed for use in CAD. Despite being developed to the stage of Phase II clinical trials, DX-9065a is no longer a priority with its developing company for further development, possibly because the Phase II trials did not show any major benefit of DX-9065a over heparin in subjects undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) or with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (ACS). ZK-807834, otamixaban, apixaban, and rivaroxaban are all direct FXa inhibitors that have undergone preclinical and some clinical testing for use in CAD. In a large Phase II clinical trial of subjects with ACS, some doses of otamixaban had a better benefit/risk profile than the unfractionated heparin/eptifibatide combination. However, neither ZK-807834 nor otamixaban appear to be undergoing further clinical development at present. In ACS, placebo-controlled large Phase II clinical trials with apixaban and rivaroxaban have not shown clear cut benefits. Nevertheless, apixaban and rivaroxaban are presently in placebo-controlled Phase III clinical trials for ACS. Presently, there is no compelling evidence to support the use of direct FXa inhibitors in ACS.

Placebo-controlled clinical trials have shown that atorvastatin is beneficial in patients with myocardial ischemia, established coronary artery disease, hypertension and 3 other cardiovascular risk factors (e.g. left-ventricular hypertrophy, type 2 diabetes, smoking), and in diabetes, but not in patients with calcific aortic stenosis. Recently, intensive low density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol lowering with atorvastatin 80 mg/day has been shown to have a greater clinical benefit than atorvastatin 10 mg/day in patients with coronary heart disease and one other high-risk factor (previous myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization or angina), and to be superior to moderate lipid lowering with pravastatin (40 mg/day) in patients with an acute coronary syndrome. However, a smaller study comparing lovastatin 5 mg/day with atorvastatin 80 mg/day was unable to detect any difference in outcomes in patients with stable coronary disease, despite the greater LDL-cholesterol lowering with the atorvastatin, possibly because it was not powered to do so. In a retrospective cohort study, atorvastatin 10 mg/day, pravastatin 20 mg/day, simvastatin 20 mg/day, lovastatin 20 mg/day and fluvastatin 20 mg/day had similar efficacy as secondary prevention after acute myocardial infarction. At present, the evidence from clinical trials is favouring the intensity of the effect on LDL-cholesterol and/or C-reactive protein (CRP) with atorvastatin 80 mg, rather than the use of atorvastatin per se, when greater benefits are observed with the 80 mg dose of atorvastatin compared to other statins. Thus, at present, it is not clear whether atorvastatin is superior to other statins in some indications (coronary heart disease, acute coronary syndromes) or whether it is the intensive lipid lowering that is responsible for the superiority. Atorvastatin has little or no ability to increase high density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol, and this may be a disadvantage in patients with metabolic syndrome or diabetes, where low HDL-cholesterol is a key feature. Thus, other statins should probably be preferred to atorvastatin in patients with diabetes/metabolic syndrome. Alternatively, atorvastatin can be used in combination with a fibrate to increase HDL-cholesterol in patients with diabetes/metabolic syndrome.