BACKGROUND: Due to encouraging pre-clinical data and supportive observational studies, there has been growing interest in applying cardiovascular drugs (including aspirin, angiotensin-converting enzyme [ACE] inhibitors, statins, and metformin) approved to treat diseases such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus to the field of oncology. Moreover, given growing costs with cancer care, these medications have offered a potentially more affordable avenue to treat or prevent recurrence of cancer. We sought to investigate the anti-cancer effects of drugs repurposed from cardiology or anti-inflammatories to treat cancer. We specifically evaluated the following drug classes: HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins), cyclo-oxygenase inhibitors, aspirin, metformin, and both angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. We also included non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) because they exert a similar mechanism to aspirin by blocking prostaglandins and reducing inflammation that is thought to promote the development of cancer.
METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review using PubMed and Web of Science with search terms including \"aspirin,\" \"NSAID,\" \"statin\" (including specific statin drug names), \"metformin,\" \"ACE inhibitors,\" and \"ARBs\" (including specific anti-hypertensive drug names) in combination with \"cancer.\" Searches were limited to human studies published between 2000 and 2023.
METHODS: The number and percentage of studies reported positive results and pooled estimates of overall survival, progression-free survival, response, and disease-free survival.
RESULTS: We reviewed 3094 titles and included 67 randomized clinical trials. The most common drugs that were tested were metformin (n = 21; 30.9%), celecoxib (n = 20; 29.4%), and simvastatin (n = 8; 11.8%). There was only one study that tested cardiac glycosides and none that studied ACE inhibitors. The most common tumor types were non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 19; 27.9%); breast (n = 8; 20.6%), colorectal (n = 7; 10.3%), and hepatocellular (n = 6; 8.8%). Most studies were conducted in a phase II trial (n = 38; 55.9%). Most studies were tested in metastatic cancers (n = 49; 72.1%) and in the first-line setting (n = 36; 521.9%). Four studies (5.9%) were stopped early because of difficulty with accrual. The majority of studies did not demonstrate an improvement in either progression-free survival (86.1% of studies testing progression-free survival) or in overall survival (94.3% of studies testing overall survival). Progression-free survival was improved in five studies (7.4%), and overall survival was improved in three studies (4.4%). Overall survival was significantly worse in two studies (3.8% of studies testing overall survival), and progression-free survival was worse in one study (2.8% of studies testing progression-free survival).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite promising pre-clinical and population-based data, cardiovascular drugs and anti-inflammatory medications have overall not demonstrated benefit in the treatment or preventing recurrence of cancer. These findings may help guide future potential clinical trials involving these medications when applied in oncology.

UNASSIGNED: To review treatment options and updates that exist for the management of paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT).
UNASSIGNED: A literature search of PubMed was performed including articles from 1974 to June 2023 using the terms: arrhythmias, adenosine, verapamil, diltiazem, esmolol, propranolol, metoprolol, beta-blockers, amiodarone, PSVT, synchronized cardioversion, methylxanthines, dipyridamole, pediatrics, heart transplant, and pregnancy. Primary literature and guidelines were reviewed.
UNASSIGNED: Studies were considered if they were available in English and conducted in humans.
UNASSIGNED: PSVT is a subset of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) that presents as a rapid, regular tachycardia with an abrupt onset and termination. Due to frequent emergency department (ED) visits annually with symptoms of PSVT, appropriate and efficient management of these patients is vital. This review provides an overview of the pathophysiology of PSVT, while also describing the literature behind nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic management of PSVT.
UNASSIGNED: This review describes new literature regarding the improved success of the modified Valsalva maneuver as a nonpharmacologic therapy in PSVT. In addition, it describes a new technique in administration of adenosine that has improved outcomes, defines dose adjustments needed for drug interactions with adenosine, compares the utilization of nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers with adenosine, and provides management recommendations for patients in special populations.
UNASSIGNED: With high annual rates of ED visits for SVT, providers should be aware of the data behind management and modifications of therapy based on patient-specific factors (ie, patient preference, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, drug interactions, and special populations).

In patients who received a cardiac stent, practice guidelines recommend dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). However, an urgent procedure may be required necessitating interruption of DAPT. Intravenous cangrelor was previously shown to be an alternative due its short-half life and quick onset/offset.
To determine the safety and effectiveness of cangrelor bridging for patients undergoing invasive procedures in a veteran population.
Retrospective cohort of patients from Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center and the VA North Texas Health Care Systems who underwent perioperative cangrelor bridging. The primary outcome was the incidence of bleeding using the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria. The secondary outcome was a composite of nonfatal stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), mortality, and unplanned revascularization within 30 days. A narrative review was also performed to summarize cangrelor bridging for noncardiac invasive procedure.
There were 41 patients that met the eligibility criteria. Patients were predominantly Caucasian (57.5%) men with a median age of 70 years. The median duration on cangrelor bridging was 2.6 days with 11 and 30 patients undergoing cardiac and noncardiac invasive procedures, respectively. Nine patients (22%) had a bleeding event of which 8 were minor. One was severe due to significant iliopsoas hematoma following drain placement. All bleeding events occurred postoperatively except for 2 perioperative events that occurred during orthopedic procedures. Ischemic events up to 30 days occurred in 3 patients (7.3%) which consisted of 1 (2.4%) nonfatal MI requiring revascularization and 2 (4.9%) deaths, 1 of which was sudden cardiac.
This study suggests that cangrelor bridging may be a reasonable alternative to holding oral P2Y12 inhibitors in patients requiring interruption of antiplatelet therapy for an urgent surgery/invasive procedure.

Advanced heart failure (HF) is a complex entity with a clinical course difficult to predict. However, most patients have a poor prognosis. This document addresses the modification of cardiovascular drugs in patients with advanced HF that are not candidates to heart transplantation or ventricular assist device and are in need of palliative care. The adjustment of cardiovascular drugs is frequently needed in these patients. The shift in emphasis from life-prolonging to symptomatic treatments should be a progressive one. We establish a series of recommendations with the aim of adjusting drugs in these patients, in order to adapt treatment to the needs and wishes of each patient. This is frequently a difficult process for patients and professionals, as drug discontinuing needs to balance treatment benefit with the psychological adaption to having a terminal illness. We encourage the use of validated assessment tools to assess prognosis and to use this information to take clinical decisions regarding drug withdrawal and therapeutic changes. The golden rule is to stop drugs that are harmful or non-essential and to continue the ones that provide symptomatic improvement.

To update our previously reported systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies on cardiovascular drug exposure and COVID-19 clinical outcomes by focusing on newly published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
More than 500 databases were searched between 1 November 2020 and 2 October 2021 to identify RCTs that were published after our baseline review. One reviewer extracted data with other reviewers verifying the extracted data for accuracy and completeness.
After screening 22 414 records, we included 24 and 21 RCTs in the qualitative and quantitative syntheses, respectively. The most investigated drug classes were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARBs) and anticoagulants, investigated by 10 and 11 studies respectively. In meta-analyses, ACEI/ARBs did not affect hospitalization length (mean difference -0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.83; 0.98 d, n = 1183), COVID-19 severity (risk ratio/RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.71; 1.15, n = 1661) or mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.92, 95% CI 0.58; 1.47, n = 1646). Therapeutic anticoagulation also had no effect (hospitalization length mean difference -0.29, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.56 d, n = 1449; severity RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.70; 1.04, n = 2696; and, mortality RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77; 1.13, n = 5689). Other investigated drug classes were antiplatelets (aspirin, 2 trials), antithrombotics (sulodexide, 1 trial), calcium channel blockers (amlodipine, 1 trial) and lipid-modifying drugs (atorvastatin, 1 trial).
Moderate- to high-certainty RCT evidence suggests that cardiovascular drugs such as ACEIs/ARBs are not associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes, and should therefore not be discontinued. These cardiovascular drugs should also not be initiated to treat or prevent COVID-19 unless they are needed for an underlying currently approved therapeutic indication.

Medication use, and gait impairment are two major risk factors for falls in older adults. There are several mechanisms linking fall risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs) and increased fall risk. One pathway involves gait performance as an intermediate variable. It is plausible that FRIDs indirectly increase fall risk by causing gait impairment. The purpose of this review was to systematically review the existing evidence on the association between FRIDs and gait performance in community-dwelling older adults without neurological movement disorders.
Two searches were performed using MeSH terms and keywords in the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and grey literature. We included clinical trials and observational studies that assessed the association between a FRID class and any quantitative measure of gait performance. Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies and the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for clinical trials. Study characteristics and findings were summarized in a descriptive approach for each drug class.
A total of 11,197 studies were retrieved from both searches at the first step and a total of 23 studies met the final inclusion criteria. Fourteen studies assessed the association between psychotropic FRIDs and gait performance and nine assessed cardiovascular FRIDs. Four out of five studies found that drugs with sedative properties are associated with reduced gait speed in older adults. Three out of four studies found no association between statin use and gait speed. There is insufficient evidence on the association between FRIDs and other gait performance measures.
Caution should be taken when prescribing drugs with sedative properties to older adults at risk of falls. Further research is required to assess the impact of the use FRIDs on gait performance measures other than gait speed.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to continually evaluate the association between cardiovascular drug exposure and COVID-19 clinical outcomes (susceptibility to infection, disease severity, hospitalization, hospitalization length, and all-cause mortality) in patients at risk of/with confirmed COVID-19.
METHODS: Eligible publications were identified from more than 500 databases on 1 November 2020. One reviewer extracted data with 20% of the records independently extracted/evaluated by a second reviewer.
RESULTS: Of 52 735 screened records, 429 and 390 studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative syntheses, respectively. The most-reported drugs were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) with ACEI/ARB exposure having borderline association with confirmed COVID-19 infection (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.00-1.31). Among COVID-19 patients, unadjusted estimates showed that ACEI/ARB exposure was associated with hospitalization (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.34-2.32), disease severity (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.26-1.55) and all-cause mortality (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12-1.33) but not hospitalization length (mean difference -0.27, 95% CI -1.36-0.82 days). After adjustment, ACEI/ARB exposure was not associated with confirmed COVID-19 infection (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71-1.19), hospitalization (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.70-1.24), disease severity (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.81-1.38) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70-1.00). Similarly, subgroup analyses involving only hypertensive patients revealed that ACEI/ARB exposure was not associated with confirmed COVID-19 infection (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79-1.09), hospitalization (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.58-1.22), hospitalization length (mean difference -0.14, 95% CI -1.65-1.36 days), disease severity (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.76-1.11) while it decreased the odds of dying (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65-0.88). A similar trend was observed for other cardiovascular drugs. However, the validity of these findings is limited by a high level of heterogeneity and serious risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS: Cardiovascular drugs are not associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes in adjusted analyses. Patients should continue taking these drugs as prescribed.

SARS-CoV-2 betacoronavirus is responsible for the Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) which has relevant pathogenic implications for the cardiovascular system. Incidence and severity of COVID-19 are higher in the elderly population (65 years and older). This may be due to higher frequency of comorbidities, but increased frailty and immunosenescence linked with aging may also contribute. Moreover, in elderly individuals, SARS-CoV-2 may adopt different molecular strategies to strongly impact on cardiac aging that culminate in exacerbating a pro-inflammatory state (cytokine storm activation), which, in turn, may lead to pulmonary vascular endothelialitis, microangiopathy, diffuse thrombosis, myocarditis, heart failure, cardiac arrhythmias, and acute coronary syndromes. All these events are particularly relevant in elderly patients, and deserve targeted cardiovascular treatments and specific management of repurposed drugs against COVID-19. We discuss current evidence about the cardiovascular involvement during COVID-19, and elaborate on clinical implications in elderly patients.

The purpose of this review is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of colchicine after acute coronary syndrome (ACS).
English-language searches were made of MEDLINE and EMBASE from database inception through mid-June 2020.
Randomized trials characterizing the effects of colchicine in ACS were considered. Of 627 title and abstracts identified, nine trials were included. Two reviewers extracted data and rated study quality.
Four studies showed colchicine did not attenuate C-reactive protein production. Colchicine did modulate the NOD-like receptor family pyrin domain containing 3 inflammasome in 3 studies and reduced production of chemokine ligand 2 (CCL2), CCL5, and C-X3-C motif chemokine ligand 1 in 1 study. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were not significantly different at 30 days in 3 studies, administered as 1.8 mg preprocedurally or scheduled 1 mg daily. One study found a significant reduction in MACE with colchicine 0.5 mg daily over median 22.6 months (hazard ratio = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.61-0.96). Colchicine is associated with increased gastrointestinal adverse events but was generally well tolerated.
Colchicine is likely to reduce MACE in an ACS population if administered for greater than 30 days but does not improve MACE when administered only preprocedurally.
Adjunctive colchicine 0.5 mg daily for greater than 30 days is reasonable for an ACS population on guideline-directed medical therapy treated with PCI. Additional studies are needed to validate and determine the durability of these benefits.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of mortality worldwide in both sexes. Despite considerable progress in better understanding the patterns of disease in women, they are still often undertreated and benefit less from evidence-based treatment. Hypertension is a key contributor to CVD and is also one of the most potent risk factors for heart failure in women. Even with the wide variety of available drugs, blood pressure control is globally suboptimal. Current guidelines do not suggest differential treatment of hypertension for women; however, a growing body of research suggests gender dimorphism in the pathophysiology of hypertension and pharmacological response to cardiovascular drugs. The clinical relevance of theses sex-divergent effects of drugs is still under investigation. Owing to the exponential relationship between blood pressure and cardiovascular mortality, even a modest decrease in blood pressure or therapeutic adhesion could be clinically \\relevant. In this review, we explore the known pharmacological and pharmacokinetic sex differences with special attention to the main classes of antihypertensive treatment. Current data shows frequently higher drug exposures in women and more frequent adverse drug reactions in all antihypertensive drug groups. As far as cardiovascular prevention is concerned, sex-specific data is often lacking in clinical trials, highlighting the necessity to further study CVD and their treatment in both men and women.