Репозиторий Университета

Background: There is currently a wide therapeutic arsenal for migraine patients, without a single first-line preventive drug and we choose the different available alternatives taking into account comorbidities, national guidelines, previous treatments and personal experiences. Our objective was to evaluate the differences in the use of migraine treatments between neurologists from different countries. Methods: This is a multi-centre observational study carried out by neurologists from specialized headache units in seven countries, retrospective with consecutive inclusion of all patients presenting with a migraine diagnosis, over a period of three months. Results: A total of 734 patients were recruited but only 600 were considered in the analysis in order to homogenize the patient cohorts from countries: 200 Spain (ES), 100 Italy (IT), 85 Russia (RUS), 80 Germany (DE), 60 Portugal (PT), 45 Poland (PL) and 30 Australia (AU). 85.4 % of patients were women with a mean age of 42.6 ± 11.8 years. Considering previous and current preventive treatment, the order of use was: antidepressants (69.3 %), antiepileptic drugs (54.7 %), beta-blockers and antihypertensive drugs (49.7 %), OnabotulinumtoxinA (44.0 %) and others (36.2 %). Statistically significant differences were found between all pharmacological classes: antidepressants were commonly used in all countries, with the exception of Poland (AU: 76.7 %, IT: 71.0 %, DE: 60.0 %, PL: 31.1 %, PT: 71.7 %, RUS: 70.6 %, ES: 78.5 %; p < 0.0001); antiepileptic drugs were more frequently prescribed in Portugal, Australia and Spain (AU: 73.3 %, IT: 40.0 %, DE: 37.5 %, PL: 48.9 %, PT: 85.0 %, RUS: 29.4 % and ES: 69.0 %; p < 0.0001); beta-blockers and antihypertensive drugs were frequently used in all countries except Italy (AU: 60.0 %, IT: 14.0 %, DE: 53.8 %, PL: 48.9 %, PT: 68.3 %, RUS: 49.4 % and ES: 59.0 %; p < 0.0001); BTX-A were predominately used in Spain, Italy and Australia (AU:56.7 %, IT:58.0 %, DE:20.0 %, PL: 42.2 %, PT: 26.7 %, RUS: 24.7 % and ES: 58.5 %; p < 0.0001) and others were most frequently used in Poland (AU: 0.0 %, IT: 19.0 %, DE: 42.5 %, PL: 95.6 %, PT: 31.7 %, RUS: 3.5 % and ES: 49.5 %; p < 0.0001). If only patients without comorbidities are considered (200/600), statistically differences between countries persist in all preventive treatments. Conclusions: There is heterogeneity in the choice of preventive treatment between different countries. Prospective comparative studies of the different oral and subcutaneous alternatives would help to create a global therapeutic algorithm that would guarantee the best option for our patients.

© 2018, The Author(s). Introduction: Heart rate (HR) reduction is an integral part of antianginal therapy, but many patients do not reach the guideline-recommended target of less than 60 bpm despite high use of beta-blockers (BB). Failure to uptitrate BB doses may be partly to blame. To explore other options for lowering HR and improving angina control, CONTROL-2 was initiated to compare the efficacy and tolerability of the combination of BBs with ivabradine versus uptitration of BBs to maximal tolerated dose, in patients with stable angina. Methods: This multicenter, open, randomized study included 1104 patients with Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class II or III stable angina, in sinus rhythm, and on background stable treatment with non-maximal recommended doses of BBs. Consecutive patients were allocated to ivabradine + BB or BB uptitration in a 4:1 ratio. Results: At the end of the study (week 16), addition of ivabradine to BB treatment and BB uptitration resulted in reduction in HR (61 ± 6 vs. 63 ± 8 bpm; p = 0.001). At week 16, significantly more patients on ivabradine + BB were in CCS class I than with BB uptitration (37.1% vs. 28%; p = 0.017) and significantly more patients were angina-free (50.6% vs. 34.2%; p < 0.001). Patient health status based on the visual analogue scale (VAS) was also better in the ivabradine + BB group. Adverse events (AEs) were significantly more common with BB uptitration than with the ivabradine + BB combination (18.4% vs. 9.4%, p < 0.001). Conclusion: In patients with stable angina, combination therapy with ivabradine + BB demonstrated good tolerability, safety, and more pronounced clinical improvement, compared to BB uptitration. Trial Registration: ISRCTN30654443. Funding: Servier.

© 2018, Silicea-Poligraf. All rights reserved. The review is focused on clinical significance of the left ventricle hypertrophy (LVH) — presentation of heart lesion as a target organ for systemic hypertension (SH). Various LVH development mechanisms are presented, and special attention is paid to sympathic nervous system and β-adrenoreceptors in pathogenesis. Fundamental methods of diagnostics are described for LVH, in comparison. The pathology is classified from the perspective of recent guidelines on echocardiographic diagnostics. Epidemiology provided. Taken current evidence, the prognostic role of LVH is described as a factor increasing the risk of fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular, cerebrovascular and renal complications in SH patients. Trials data presented that points on LVH regression with highly selective β1-blocker bisoprolol treatment. Pathophysiology of LVH regression is discussed for β1-blocker treatment.