II Medizinische Klinik für Kardiologie/Angiologie, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany.
Ann Med. 2011 Jun;43(4):259-72. doi: 10.3109/07853890.2010.543920. Epub 2011 Feb 1.
In a previous issue of Annals of Medicine, we presented evidence in support of the concept that an abnormally increased production of reactive oxygen species plays a central role in the genesis and progression of cardiovascular disease. While a number of preclinical lines of evidence support this concept, and despite the results of many studies suggesting a beneficial impact of antioxidant drugs on endothelial function, large clinical trials have failed to demonstrate a benefit of antioxidants on cardiovascular outcomes. Studies exploring the possibility that classical antioxidants such as vitamin C, vitamin E, selenium, or folic acid may improve the prognosis of patients with cardiac disease have substantially reported neutral-and occasionally negative-results. In contrast, medications such as statins, ACE inhibitors, certain β-blockers, or angiotensin I receptor blockers, which possess indirect 'ancillary' antioxidant properties, have been associated with beneficial effects in both preclinical studies and large clinical trials. The reasons for the failure of the 'direct' approach to antioxidant therapy, and for the success of the therapy with these drugs, are discussed in the present review.
在《医学纪事》的前一期中,我们提出了证据支持这样一种概念,即活性氧的异常增加在心血管疾病的发生和进展中起着核心作用。虽然有许多临床前研究证据支持这一概念,而且尽管许多研究结果表明抗氧化药物对内皮功能有有益的影响,但大型临床试验未能证明抗氧化剂对心血管结局有获益。探索经典抗氧化剂(如维生素 C、维生素 E、硒或叶酸)是否可能改善心脏病患者预后的研究报告了大量中性结果,偶尔也有负面结果。相比之下,他汀类药物、ACE 抑制剂、某些β受体阻滞剂或血管紧张素 I 受体阻滞剂等具有间接“辅助”抗氧化特性的药物,在临床前研究和大型临床试验中均与有益作用相关。本文综述了“直接”抗氧化治疗方法失败的原因,以及这些药物治疗成功的原因。