Effect of drug combinations on admission for recurrent myocardial infarction

Abstract

Multiple drug treatment decreases admissions for recurrent MI in patients with a history of MI. Every addition of a drug, regardless of drug class, reduces the risk even further. These results support the treatment strategies as applied in daily practice.

Medications Recommended for Secondary Prevention After First Acute Coronary Syndrome: Effectiveness of Treatment Combinations in a Real‐Life Setting

“…[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] These drugs constitute the evidence-based cardiovascular medications (EBCMs) and the full combination associates the four EBCMs, the reference therapy. Several studies evaluated the efficacy of EBCMs in real-life conditions [8][9][10][11] that could be affected by noncompliance to treatment encountered in post-ACS. [12][13][14][15] These studies, which essentially focused on post-acute myocardial infarction (AMI), did not evaluate the effectiveness of these drugs when used in combination, or apply assessment procedures for drug uses that risked an immeasurable-time bias.…”

Evidence‐based prescribing of drugs for secondary prevention of acute coronary syndrome in Aboriginal and non‐Aboriginal patients admitted to Western Australian hospitals

“…15 A recent comparison study on ACS in the Northern Territory, Australia, documented significantly lower discharge prescription of statins among Aboriginal patients than non-Aboriginals. 4 Although secondary preventive drug therapy has incrementally reduced the likelihood of ACS readmission and death, 17,18 questions have been raised about the suitability of such combinations of drugs in subgroups of ACS patients with chronic comorbidities. 19 Comorbid conditions such as severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and severe heart or kidney failure may be contraindications to the use of some of these secondary prevention drugs.…”

Unrecognised myocardial infarction in subjects at high vascular risk: prevalence and determinants

“…However, evidence on this subject is still insufficient. As mentioned above, opportunities exist for increasing the benefits of secondary prevention drug therapy 15 – 17. If future evidence would demonstrate that screening for UMI would prognostically benefit the individual patient, the benefits of the various detection methods should be compared.…”

“…DE-CMR studies in subjects with vascular disease in areas other than the coronary arteries and among those with vascular risk factors are lacking. Importantly, as argued previously in this journal, despite high levels of cholesterol-lowering drugs, blood-pressure-lowering drugs and antiplatelet aggregation drugs, prescribing opportunities exist for increasing the benefits of secondary prevention 15 – 17. In this regard, it is important to select those subjects who would benefit most from secondary prevention measures.…”