Expert consensus document: A 'diamond' approach to personalized treatment of angina

R Ferrari, PG Camici, F Crea, N Danchin, K Fox, AP Maggioni, AJ Manolis, M Marzilli, GMC Rosano, JL Lopez-Sendon

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

In clinical guidelines, drugs for symptomatic angina are classified as being first choice (β-blockers, calcium-channel blockers, short-acting nitrates) or second choice (ivabradine, nicorandil, ranolazine, trimetazidine), with the recommendation to reserve second-choice medications for patients who have contraindications to first-choice agents, do not tolerate them, or remain symptomatic. No direct comparisons between first-choice and second-choice treatments have demonstrated the superiority of one group of drugs over the other. Meta-analyses show that all antianginal drugs have similar efficacy in reducing symptoms, but provide no evidence for improvement in survival. The newer, second-choice drugs have more evidence-based clinical data that are more contemporary than is available for traditional first-choice drugs. Considering some drugs, but not others, to be first choice is, therefore, difficult. Moreover, double or triple therapy is often needed to control angina. Patients with angina can have several comorbidities, and symptoms can result from various underlying pathophysiologies. Some agents, in addition to having antianginal effects, have properties that could be useful depending on the comorbidities present and the mechanisms of angina, but the guidelines do not provide recommendations on the optimal combinations of drugs. In this Consensus Statement, we propose an individualized approach to angina treatment, which takes into consideration the patient, their comorbidities, and the underlying mechanism of disease. © 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)120-132
Number of pages13
JournalNature Reviews Cardiology
Volume15
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018

Fingerprint

Diamond
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Comorbidity
ivabradine
Therapeutics
Trimetazidine
Guidelines
Nicorandil
Calcium Channel Blockers
Drug Combinations
Nitrates
Meta-Analysis
Survival

Cite this

Ferrari, R., Camici, PG., Crea, F., Danchin, N., Fox, K., Maggioni, AP., ... Lopez-Sendon, JL. (2018). Expert consensus document: A 'diamond' approach to personalized treatment of angina. Nature Reviews Cardiology, 15(2), 120-132. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2017.131

Expert consensus document: A 'diamond' approach to personalized treatment of angina. / Ferrari, R; Camici, PG; Crea, F; Danchin, N; Fox, K; Maggioni, AP; Manolis, AJ; Marzilli, M; Rosano, GMC; Lopez-Sendon, JL.

In: Nature Reviews Cardiology, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2018, p. 120-132.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ferrari, R, Camici, PG, Crea, F, Danchin, N, Fox, K, Maggioni, AP, Manolis, AJ, Marzilli, M, Rosano, GMC & Lopez-Sendon, JL 2018, 'Expert consensus document: A 'diamond' approach to personalized treatment of angina', Nature Reviews Cardiology, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 120-132. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2017.131
Ferrari, R ; Camici, PG ; Crea, F ; Danchin, N ; Fox, K ; Maggioni, AP ; Manolis, AJ ; Marzilli, M ; Rosano, GMC ; Lopez-Sendon, JL. / Expert consensus document: A 'diamond' approach to personalized treatment of angina. In: Nature Reviews Cardiology. 2018 ; Vol. 15, No. 2. pp. 120-132.
@article{c18c6634c86344b9abe7067690f81068,
title = "Expert consensus document: A 'diamond' approach to personalized treatment of angina",
abstract = "In clinical guidelines, drugs for symptomatic angina are classified as being first choice (β-blockers, calcium-channel blockers, short-acting nitrates) or second choice (ivabradine, nicorandil, ranolazine, trimetazidine), with the recommendation to reserve second-choice medications for patients who have contraindications to first-choice agents, do not tolerate them, or remain symptomatic. No direct comparisons between first-choice and second-choice treatments have demonstrated the superiority of one group of drugs over the other. Meta-analyses show that all antianginal drugs have similar efficacy in reducing symptoms, but provide no evidence for improvement in survival. The newer, second-choice drugs have more evidence-based clinical data that are more contemporary than is available for traditional first-choice drugs. Considering some drugs, but not others, to be first choice is, therefore, difficult. Moreover, double or triple therapy is often needed to control angina. Patients with angina can have several comorbidities, and symptoms can result from various underlying pathophysiologies. Some agents, in addition to having antianginal effects, have properties that could be useful depending on the comorbidities present and the mechanisms of angina, but the guidelines do not provide recommendations on the optimal combinations of drugs. In this Consensus Statement, we propose an individualized approach to angina treatment, which takes into consideration the patient, their comorbidities, and the underlying mechanism of disease. {\circledC} 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.",
author = "R Ferrari and PG Camici and F Crea and N Danchin and K Fox and AP Maggioni and AJ Manolis and M Marzilli and GMC Rosano and JL Lopez-Sendon",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.1038/nrcardio.2017.131",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
pages = "120--132",
journal = "Nature Reviews Cardiology",
issn = "1759-5002",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Expert consensus document: A 'diamond' approach to personalized treatment of angina

AU - Ferrari, R

AU - Camici, PG

AU - Crea, F

AU - Danchin, N

AU - Fox, K

AU - Maggioni, AP

AU - Manolis, AJ

AU - Marzilli, M

AU - Rosano, GMC

AU - Lopez-Sendon, JL

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - In clinical guidelines, drugs for symptomatic angina are classified as being first choice (β-blockers, calcium-channel blockers, short-acting nitrates) or second choice (ivabradine, nicorandil, ranolazine, trimetazidine), with the recommendation to reserve second-choice medications for patients who have contraindications to first-choice agents, do not tolerate them, or remain symptomatic. No direct comparisons between first-choice and second-choice treatments have demonstrated the superiority of one group of drugs over the other. Meta-analyses show that all antianginal drugs have similar efficacy in reducing symptoms, but provide no evidence for improvement in survival. The newer, second-choice drugs have more evidence-based clinical data that are more contemporary than is available for traditional first-choice drugs. Considering some drugs, but not others, to be first choice is, therefore, difficult. Moreover, double or triple therapy is often needed to control angina. Patients with angina can have several comorbidities, and symptoms can result from various underlying pathophysiologies. Some agents, in addition to having antianginal effects, have properties that could be useful depending on the comorbidities present and the mechanisms of angina, but the guidelines do not provide recommendations on the optimal combinations of drugs. In this Consensus Statement, we propose an individualized approach to angina treatment, which takes into consideration the patient, their comorbidities, and the underlying mechanism of disease. © 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.

AB - In clinical guidelines, drugs for symptomatic angina are classified as being first choice (β-blockers, calcium-channel blockers, short-acting nitrates) or second choice (ivabradine, nicorandil, ranolazine, trimetazidine), with the recommendation to reserve second-choice medications for patients who have contraindications to first-choice agents, do not tolerate them, or remain symptomatic. No direct comparisons between first-choice and second-choice treatments have demonstrated the superiority of one group of drugs over the other. Meta-analyses show that all antianginal drugs have similar efficacy in reducing symptoms, but provide no evidence for improvement in survival. The newer, second-choice drugs have more evidence-based clinical data that are more contemporary than is available for traditional first-choice drugs. Considering some drugs, but not others, to be first choice is, therefore, difficult. Moreover, double or triple therapy is often needed to control angina. Patients with angina can have several comorbidities, and symptoms can result from various underlying pathophysiologies. Some agents, in addition to having antianginal effects, have properties that could be useful depending on the comorbidities present and the mechanisms of angina, but the guidelines do not provide recommendations on the optimal combinations of drugs. In this Consensus Statement, we propose an individualized approach to angina treatment, which takes into consideration the patient, their comorbidities, and the underlying mechanism of disease. © 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.

U2 - 10.1038/nrcardio.2017.131

DO - 10.1038/nrcardio.2017.131

M3 - Article

VL - 15

SP - 120

EP - 132

JO - Nature Reviews Cardiology

JF - Nature Reviews Cardiology

SN - 1759-5002

IS - 2

ER -