Department of Clinical Pharmacology, BHF Centre of Research Excellence, Cardiovascular Division, King's College London, London, UK
Department of Clinical Pharmacology, BHF Centre of Research Excellence, Cardiovascular Division, King's College London, London, UK.
Cardiovasc Res. 2016 Jan 1;109(1):9-23. doi: 10.1093/cvr/cvv227. Epub 2015 Sep 25.
Anti-inflammatory add-on therapy to conventional cardiovascular prophylaxis has been proposed as a novel therapeutic approach to potentially reduce residual cardiovascular risk. This hypothesis has been challenged by a series of unsuccessful Phase III studies testing the impact on clinical outcomes of novel agents with immunomodulatory actions. Specifically, the apparent ability of phospholipase A2 (PLA2) inhibitors and of antioxidants to ameliorate inflammation and to reduce coronary disease in Phase II trials did not translate into improved secondary cardiovascular prevention in larger population-based studies. Other anti-inflammatory agents are still under scrutiny. However, studies to date have lacked information on the inflammatory profile of the participants, both at baseline and at follow-up, thereby limiting the possibility of identifying subgroups of patients in whom 'residual inflammation' can be detected despite optimal conventional therapy, and who could therefore benefit from a cardiovascular prevention strategy specifically targeting inflammation. This has also rendered it difficult to interpret the results as a conclusive demonstration of inefficacy of the tested anti-inflammatory strategies in the treatment of atherosclerosis. We here discuss the importance of better patient characterization to minimize heterogeneity of the study population, so that effectiveness of different anti-inflammatory strategies can be evaluated in targeted subgroups of patients. We also illustrate how specific inflammatory biomarkers could assist in this process, with particular emphasis on the roles of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and circulating monocyte phenotype.
抗炎辅助治疗联合常规心血管预防被提议作为一种潜在的降低残余心血管风险的新的治疗方法。这一假说受到了一系列不成功的 III 期研究的挑战,这些研究测试了具有免疫调节作用的新型药物对临床结果的影响。具体来说,在 II 期试验中,磷脂酶 A2(PLA2)抑制剂和抗氧化剂改善炎症和减少冠心病的明显能力并没有转化为更大的基于人群的研究中改善二级心血管预防。其他抗炎药物仍在研究中。然而,迄今为止的研究缺乏参与者炎症特征的信息,无论是在基线还是随访时,从而限制了识别尽管接受最佳常规治疗仍存在“残余炎症”的患者亚组的可能性,这些患者可能受益于专门针对炎症的心血管预防策略。这也使得难以解释结果,无法得出所测试的抗炎策略在治疗动脉粥样硬化方面无效的结论。在这里,我们讨论了更好地对患者进行特征描述的重要性,以最大限度地减少研究人群的异质性,从而可以在特定的患者亚组中评估不同抗炎策略的有效性。我们还说明了特定的炎症生物标志物如何在这个过程中提供帮助,特别强调高敏 C 反应蛋白和循环单核细胞表型的作用。